UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO

Facing the Earth, Grounding the Image:

Representations of the Aztec Tlaltecuhtli

A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the

Requirements for the degree Master of Arts

in

Art History, Theory and Criticism

by

Lucia Ross Henderson

Committee in charge:

Professor Grant Kester, Chair

Professor Roberto J. Tejada
Professor Eduardo de Jesus Douglas
Professor Geoffrey E. Braswell

2005
The thesis of Lucia Ross Henderson is approved:

Chair

University of California, San Diego

2005

iii
 DEDICATION

In Memory of Vogtie,
Loving and Wonderful Man,
Whose Flowers, Whose Songs
Will Always Remain an Inspiration.

Will I have to go like the flowers that perish?

Will nothing remain of my name?
Nothing of my fame here on earth?
At least my flowers, at least my songs!
Earth is the region of the fleeting moment.
Is it also thus in the place
Where in some way one lives?
Is there joy there, is there friendship?
Or is it only here on earth
We come to know our faces?

(Matos Moctezuma and Solís 2002:120)

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Signature Page…………………………………………………………………... iii

Dedication………………………………………………………………………. iv

Table of Contents…………………………………………………………….…. v

List of Figures…………………………………………………………………... vii

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………... ix

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………. x

1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………... 1

1.1 The Conflation of Earth Deities…………………………………………. 3

1.2 Historiography…………………………………………………………… 6
1.3 The Devil is in the Details……………………………………………….. 12
1.4 Methodology……………………………………………………………. 15
1.5 Outline of Study…………………………………………………………. 17

2. Aspects of the Earth: Gender and Aztec Worldview………………………… 21

2.1 Gender: Duality versus Ambiguity………………………………………. 21

2.1.1 Gender Ambiguity in the Case of Tlaltecuhtli……………………. 23
2.1.2 The Dual-Gendered Earth…………………………………….…... 27
2.2 Dismemberment and Rebirth: Themes of Reciprocity…………………... 31
2.3 First the Good News, Then the Bad……………………………………... 34
2.4 The Hidden Earth: Tlaltecuhtli and the Sun……………………………... 36
2.5 Tlaltecuhtli and the Templo Mayor……………………………………… 42
2.6 Summary and Conclusions………………………………………………. 46

3. Towards an Iconographic Definition of Tlaltecuhtli……………………….… 48

3.1 Who is Tlaltecuhtli?……………………………………………………... 48

3.1.1 The Hocker Position as All Directions……………………………. 51
3.1.2 The Hocker Position as Birth……………………………………... 52
3.1.3 The Hocker Position as Defeat……………………………………. 55
3.1.4 The Hocker Position as Descent…………………………………... 57
3.1.5 The Hocker Position as Amphibian……………………………….. 59
3.2 Summary and Conclusions………………………………………………. 61

v
4. Tlaltecuhtli 1……………………………………………………………….… 64

4.1 Shared Characteristics of Tlaltecuhtli 1…………………………………. 65

4.1.1 Masked Joints……………………………………………………... 65
4.1.2 Skull and Crossbones Skirt……………………………………….. 68
4.1.3 “Malinalli” Grass Hair…………………………………………….. 69
4.1.4 Claws and Bracelets………………………………………………. 72
4.2 Features of Tlaltecuhtli 1a……………………………………………….. 73
4.2.1 Metaphors of Consumption……………………………………….. 73
4.2.2 Tlalchitonatiuh…………………………………………………….. 78
4.2.3 Skulls and Dorsal Views………………………………………….. 79
4.2.4 The Tlaltecuhtli 1a “Knife Variant” ……………………………… 80
4.2.5 Frontal Views……………………………………………………... 84
4.3 The Features and Face of Tlaltecuhtli 1b………………………………... 87
4.4 Shared Features of Dorsal Tlaltecuhtli 1a and 1b……………………….. 91
4.5 Summary and Conclusions………………………………………………. 92

5. Tlaltecuhtli 2…………………………………………………………………. 94

5.1 The Face of Tlaloc? ……………………………………………………... 97

5.1.1 Tlaloc-Tlaltecuhtli: A Deity Variant……………………………… 102
5.2 Connections to Teotihuacan……………………………………………... 105
5.3 Connections to the Gulf Coast…………………………………………… 108
5.4 The Aztec Earth and the Ballgame………………………………………. 111
5.5 Tenam Rosario: The Maya and the Ballgame…………………………… 113
5.6 Summary and Conclusions………………………………………………. 115

6. Conclusion………………………………………………………………….. 117

6.1 Summary of Arguments…………………………………………………. 119

6.2 Reconciling Identities: the Two Faces of the Earth……………………... 123
6.3 Much Ado About Nothing? The Importance of Tlaltecuhtli…………….. 126
6.4 Conclusion……………………………………………………………….. 129

Appendix 1 and Figures………………………………………………………… 131

Bibliography…………………………………………………………………….. 153

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Appendix 1………………………………………………………………………. 131

Figure 1: Tlaltecuhtli 1a (dorsal views) …………………………………………. 132

Figure 2: Tlaltecuhtli 1a (frontal views) ………………………………………… 132

Figure 3: Tlaltecuhtli 1a “Knife Variant” ……………………………………….. 133

Figure 4: Tlaltecuhtli 1b…………………………………………………………. 134

Figure 5: Tlaltecuhtli 1b (continued) ……………………………………………. 135

Figure 6: Tlaltecuhtli 2…………………………………………………………... 136

Figure 7: Tlaltecuhtli 2 (continued) ……………………………………………... 137

Figure 8: Back Skulls………………………………………………………….… 138

Figure 9: Back of the Teocalli of Moctezuma…………………………………… 138

Figure 10: Coyolxauhqui Stone………………………………………………….. 138

Figure 11: Birth Imagery………………………………………………………… 139

Figure 12: Images of Skins and Sacrifice………………………………………... 139

Figure 13: Descending Deities…………………………………………………... 140

Figure 14: Toad Imagery………………………………………………………… 140

Figure 15: Nanahuatzin Born out of the Joints of a Skeletal God……………….. 140

Figure 16: Ñuju Imagery…………………………………………………………. 141

Figure 17: Tzitzimime Depictions………………………………………………... 141

Figure 18: Skirts as Platforms…………………………………………………… 142

Figure 19: Codex Depictions of the Jaws of the Earth………………………….. 142

Figure 20: Cave Imagery……………………………………………….………... 143

vii
Figure 21: Tzompantli and Decapitation Imagery……………………………….. 144

Figure 22: Flint Imagery……………………………………………….………… 144

Figure 23: Skirts and Hips as Bowls…………………………………………….. 145

Figure 24: Images of Cihuacoatl………………………………………………… 145

Figure 25: Coyote Tail Imagery…………………………………………………. 146

Figure 26: The Face of Tlaloc? ……………………………………………….…. 146

Figure 27: Teotihuacan Connections…………………………………………….. 147

Figure 28: Gulf Coast Associations……………………………………………… 148

Figure 29: Maya Connections……………………………………………….…… 149

Figure 30: The Earth and the Ballgame………………………………………….. 149

Figure 31: Some Tlaltecuhtli Variants…………………………………………… 150

Figure 32: Cultural Links……………………………………………….……….. 150

Figure 33: Deity Variant Tlalchitonatiuh………………………………………... 151

Figure 34: Deity Variant Tlaloc-Tlaltecuhtli…………………………………….. 151

Figure 35: Additional Tlaltecuhtli Images……………………………………….. 152

Figure 36: Deity Variants……………………………………………….……….. 152

viii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis would never have been produced if not for the sage advice and

commentary of friends, colleagues, and mentors. The people listed below were the

support network on which I relied throughout, helping this work become something of

which I am truly proud. To all of them, I would like to extend my sincerest thanks.

First, a thank you to all of my committee members: to Grant Kester, my chair,

for his support, optimism, and kindness throughout; to Roberto Tejada for loving

prose and never having simple thoughts; to Eduardo Douglas, not only for extreme

flexibility and understanding, but also for knowing just what advice was needed at just

what time; and, finally, to Geoff Braswell for never mincing words, for making editing

amusing, and never letting me get away with anything.

I was also fortunate to have the guidance of many who, not acting in any official

capacity, went above and beyond the call of duty to assist me in this work. First and

foremost, Karl Taube, who has given me something and someone to aspire to— thank

you for being an advisor, mentor, and friend. A heartfelt thanks also to Rhonda Taube,

my colleague, partner, and saving grace, for the endless advice, late-night phone calls,

and constant reinforcement. To Jonathan Amith, extraordinary Nahuatl scholar, thank

you for the emails and for Oapan. Also, my thanks to Jo Rudolph for understanding

the inner workings of UCSD and helping me navigate the pink through saffron pages.

Last but not least, I want to thank my family and friends (including, of course,

the above) not only for their unflagging support, but simply for being my family and

friends. None of this would have been possible without you.

ix
 ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS

Facing the Earth, Grounding the Image:

Representations of the Aztec Tlaltecuhtli

by

Lucia Ross Henderson

Master of Arts in Art History, Theory and Criticism

University of California, San Diego, 2005

Professor Grant Kester, Chair

This thesis addresses representations of Tlaltecuhtli, the Aztec earth deity,

focusing particularly on the iconography of carved stone reliefs of the deity from

Tenochtitlan. It is argued that the Aztecs represented their earth in two distinct ways.

The first (referred to as “Tlaltecuhtli 1”) was a female earth whose symbolism was

drawn from and revolved around the myths and ideology of the Mexica. The second

(referred to as “Tlaltecuhtli 2”) was a male earth, whose iconography was associated

with the great civilizations that preceded the Aztecs, including Teotihuacan, El Tajín,

and possibly even the Maya area.

x
 This thesis argues, first, that the combination of detailed iconographic study

with measured interpretation, by focusing on the meaning behind the details of

representations of the Aztec earth, illuminates not only the implications of

iconographic variation, but also gives shape to an earth that is rarely described in

history and myth. Second, this thesis argues that art presents a singular window into

Aztec thought and worldview. Images of Tlaltecuhtli not only describe and realize the

Aztec world in a very physical way, but also, by referencing both the Mexica earth and

the earth of their ancestors, provide a unique expression of Aztec struggles to

reconcile the disparate parts of their personal and ethnic identities.

xi
 Chapter 1: Introduction

We live HERE on the earth (stamping the mud floor)

we are all fruits of the earth
the earth sustains us
we grow here, on the earth and lower
and when we die we wither in the earth
we are ALL FRUITS of the earth (stamping the mud floor).

-Prayer by the Nahua of San Miguel1

This thesis examines representations of the deity Tlaltecuhtli, the

anthropomorphic expression of the Aztec earth. I argue that these images not only

embody the basic Aztec principle of duality, but also represent the physical expression

of the Aztec struggle to forge a new personal identity from a multiple ethnic history.

Often called the “Earth Lord” or “earth monster,” Tlaltecuhtli is mentioned in many

publications on Aztec art, though the figure is rarely discussed in depth. Among the

numerous Aztec deities, Tlaltecuhtli is particularly difficult to understand, not only

because seemingly innumerable variations are displayed in Aztec iconography, but

also because images are most often carved on the undersides of stone objects, out of

the sight of both the eyes of viewers and the cameras of catalogers. Despite their

relative invisibility to the observer, however, these stone reliefs are “…among the

most sophisticated and intricately carved in the whole range of Aztec art” (Nicholson

and Quiñones Keber 1983:61). Marked with a simple grace of line and form, these

works of art demonstrate the subtle ways in which Aztec artists manipulated an

iconographic language to create visual reflections of their nuanced religious system.

1
Recorded by Tim Knab (quoted in Broda 1987:107).

1
 2

This mastery of form and media is even more remarkable when one recalls the fact

that these images were never meant to be viewed by anyone or anything other than the

earth itself. These images, as teixiptla, were not merely representations of the earth,

but embodied the divinity of the earth itself, expressing what López Austín describes

as “The belief in the eruption of divine force into an image…” (1990:138; see also

Houston and Stuart 1995:297).

The earth itself has, in many ways, been overlooked as a key factor in the way in

which the Aztecs understood their world. Authors often discuss the Aztec cosmos and

worldview, but they do not focus upon the physical aspect of that cosmos, terra firma.

Nevertheless, an understanding of the representations of Tlaltecuhtli, the embodiment

and body of the earth itself, may help clarify the way in which the Aztecs viewed their

ideological and physical universe. Because Tlaltecuhtli is so rarely discussed in depth,

references to the deity are often contradictory or inconsistent. Tlaltecuhtli, for

instance, is regarded equally as male, female, or bi-gendered, and authors variously

interpret the number of iconographic variants of the deity as two, three, or four. This

thesis attempts to resolve these contradictions, an enterprise performed through the

combination of close iconographic study with a degree of cautious interpretation.

Focusing on the individual elements that make up visual representations of the earth,

as well as the way in which they are combined, helps us to better comprehend the

multiple meanings that were embodied by images of Tlaltecuhtli.

This thesis argues that there were two very different ways in which the Aztecs

represented Tlaltecuhtli. The first of these, here referred to as “Tlaltecuhtli 1” (Figures

 3

1-5), was female and represented the face of the Mexica earth. The second, here

referred to as “Tlaltecuhtli 2” (Figures 6-7), was a male version of the earth who

referenced the deities of the predecessors of the Aztec Empire, especially Teotihuacan

and the Gulf Coast. This doubling of the earth is argued to be a result of the Aztecs’

recognition of their own multiple ethnicity, an effort to reconcile the new gods of their

Chichimec identity with the old gods of their Toltec predecessors. Most importantly,

however, this thesis argues for the value of close iconographic study as a means of

illuminating Aztec life and personal identity, of reaching a more profound

understanding of the way in which the Aztecs used ideology and visual imagery to

situate themselves in space and time. Therefore, this thesis focuses not only on the

division of the earth into two categories, but also on the meaning behind the details

that distinguish these categories from each other.

1.1 The Conflation of Earth Deities

One challenge that arises when addressing Tlaltecuhtli imagery in particular is

finding a way to separate this deity from other deities of the earth. A number of

authors have argued that the often hazy boundaries among figures in the Aztec

pantheon are due to the fact that similar deities are really manifestations of the same

overlying concepts and phenomena. As Berlo states, “…the Aztec ‘pantheon’ may not

really be a list of individual divinities but rather a metaphoric panoply of names that

describe diverse attributes” (1988:147). From this standpoint, Aztec deities are

believed to exist along a fluid spectrum of forces rather than as individual entities.

“Gods did not have absolute individuality. They fused and unfolded; they changed
 4

attributes and names…; their personalities altered constantly in accordance with the

dynamics of the contexts” (López Austín 1988:241). Townsend connects this to the

idea of kennings, a metaphorical tool in which a single thing may be described in a

multitude of ways. “In reality, we are confronted simply with a litany of kennings

describing aspects of the same phenomenon” (1979:28, 29). As a result, female

deities, especially deities related to the earth, are often conflated in contemporary

scholarship (see Sullivan 1982; Araujo 1945; Heyden 1974:3; Seler 1990-[III]:248,

1963[I]:117-118; Van Zantwijk 1985:44; Caso 1970:53, 1945:43; Broda 1983:243-

244; Aguilera 2001:52; Baquedano and Graulich 1993:174). Such substitutions often

occur in the case of Tlaltecuhtli as well, who is frequently viewed as an aspect of other

earth goddesses like Xochiquetzal, Itzpapalotl, Citlalicue, Cihuacoatl, and Coatlique

(Klein 1973:70, 1976:68; Broda 1983:243; Graulich 1997:108). Though this emphasis

on equivalence addresses the heavy overlap among these earth deities, it can make it

difficult to engage these deities individually, as this thesis attempts to do in the case of

Tlaltecuhtli.

Caso (1970) explains that the overlap among deities is the result of an opposition

between the priesthood, which understood all gods to be aspects of a singular god, and

the common people, who “…would not admit that their local god was subject to any

other or that he was only an attribute of a superior being” (Ibid.:7-8). Just as the Aztec

Empire was incorporating other lands and peoples into its domain, Caso argues, the

Aztec priesthood was synthesizing disparate gods under the heading of monotheism.

He states: “One of the greatest difficulties encountered in any attempt to understand

 5

Aztec mythology is the multiplicity of gods and the diversity of attributes of the same

god. This is due… to the fact that Aztec religion was in a period of synthesis, in which

there were being grouped together, within the concept of a single god, different

capacities that were considered to be related” (Ibid.:23; see also Caso 1945).

This theory of a united effort by the Aztec priesthood to encourage monotheism

in the commoner class needs further exploration (see Shelton 1989:153-157; Beyer

1910:116, quoted in León-Portilla 1963:89, 212-213). Most importantly, it emphasizes

that the Aztecs, as newcomers and conquerors, adopted most of their deities from

surrounding regions and sought to unify them under a single religious order.

Itzpapalotl, for instance, was originally a Chichimec goddess, while Tlazolteotl was a

Huastec, and Cihuacoatl was drawn from Culhuacan. In many ways, the large number

of overlapping Aztec earth goddesses is a result of the combination of individual earth

goddesses from diverse cultures. Though there is certainly value in better

understanding what overlapping characteristics join these deities together, there may

also be value in trying to better understand what differentiates them from one another.

A focus on difference rather than similarity would highlight the individual elements

characteristic of deities’ cultures of origin as well as the culturally diverse history of

the Aztec Empire.

Nicholson (1971) negotiates the distance between individual goddesses and

conflated forms by creating larger categories of attributes and associations beneath

which individual goddesses are grouped. For Nicholson, deities with terrestrial

associations do overlap, falling under the same umbrella category. Despite their
 6

overlap, though, deities are considered separate entities with separate backgrounds and

offices. For the purpose of this thesis, Tlaltecuhtli is considered one such separate

entity. The earth and the deities that govern aspects of it are dealt with as different

things, despite their close association. Though other terrestrial deities share certain of

Tlaltecuhtli’s features, it is nevertheless easy to differentiate Tlaltecuhtli images from

other deity forms. It is useful, then, to examine the particular ways in which this earth

deity was differentiated from other terrestrial deities, both in art and in the minds of

the Aztecs.

Without means to separate Tlaltecuhtli from other earth-related beings,

Tlaltecuhtli has often been swept into general thematic categories. It is well known

that the earth, like all earth deities, had both creative and destructive powers and was

considered with both gratitude and fear. The specific ways in which these concepts

were expressed in visual imagery, however, have often been subsumed beneath

broader themes. This thesis focuses expressly on the visual representation of

Tlaltecuhtli, delineating the specific attributes of the deity and thereby linking the

conceptual associations of the earth to their particular expressions in iconography.

1.2 Historiography

There were several Aztec world models. At times, the earth was considered to be

the back of a giant crocodile floating in the midst of the sea. As is recorded in the

Historia de los Mexicanos por sus pinturas, the gods at the world’s beginning create

water and within it “…a large fish, like a caiman, that they called Cipactli, and from

this fish they made the earth…” (Garibay 1973:25). At other times, the prevalent
 7

model seems to have been cemanahuac, an island surrounded by water. In this thesis I

focus specifically on Tlaltecuhtli, a more anthropomorphic version of the earth who

was, for the most part, rendered in stone reliefs found only in Tenochtitlan. According

to Nicholson (1954:166), Seler was probably the first to recognize these images of

squatting creatures beneath stone boxes and cuauhxicalli as “Tlaltecuhtli in the guise

of a great monster-toad.” Based on Seler’s identification, authors have generally

plotted Tlaltecuhtli imagery against that of cipactli, the great earth crocodile (see

Nicholson and Quiñones Keber 1983: 61). As Nicholson states, the Aztecs conceived

of the world in two ways: “(1) as a great spiny monster (cipactli), based essentially on

the crocodile, with some piscatorial overtones… [and] (2) as a gigantic, crouching

toadlike monster, with snapping mouths at the elbow and knee joints and gaping,

teeth-studded mouth…” (1971:406). This separation of Tlaltecuhtli from other earth

models has established the rough outlines of Tlaltecuhtli research, the initial

parameters within which the more detailed and specific iconographic analyses of this

deity’s imagery have been undertaken, including those by Nicholson (1954, 1967,

1972), Gutiérrez Solana (1983), Matos Moctezuma (1997), and Baquedano and Orton

(1990).

The first notable efforts at classifying Tlaltecuhtli images as a specific

iconographic unit were undertaken by Nicholson (1954, 1967,1972), who determined

that there were three Tlaltecuhtli categories. These three categories were, for the most

part, based on the heads of each variant: (1) an open maw filled with teeth (Figures 1-

3); (2) an upside-down human face (Figures 4-5); and (3) a “Tlalocoid” face (Figures
 8

6-7, 34). In the earliest of these articles, Nicholson (1954) addresses a particular

Tlaltecuhtli image that depicts the birth of Tezcatlipoca from the navel of the earth and

focuses more on the conceptual associations of the earth monster than the

iconographic division of Tlaltecuhtli variants. For instance, he notes the association of

the earth with darkness and night and concludes that the toothy Tlaltecuhtli head

variant depicts the “earth as the voracious swallower of the dead” (Ibid.:166-167). He

also cites the fact that all Tlaltecuhtli images have in common a squatting body pose,

which he links to the mamazouhticac or parturition position. This pose, he argues, is

“…logically connected with the conceptualization of the earth as the great womb of

life, the progenitress of all mankind” (1954:166). This brief study of the connection

between iconographic details of Tlaltecuhtli imagery and the conceptual associations

of the earth in general offers some of the clearest and best-supported conclusions

available in Tlaltecuhtli research. His two later articles review the conclusions reached

in 1954, but stress the categorical division of Tlaltecuhtli variants over the meanings

expressed by such divisions.

Another important study is that by Gutiérrez Solana (1983), which addresses

what this thesis refers to as “Tlaltecuhtli 1” (Figures 1-5), those earth images with

either an open maw or upside down female head. This article argues that the human

head variant, which is never seen in the Borgia group or Mixtec codices, is derived

from the open jaw, a vision of the earth that seems to have been widespread

throughout central Mexico. (Ibid.:24). Interestingly, Gutiérrez Solana is the only

author to separate from other Tlaltecuhtli 1 images what is referred to in this thesis as
 9

the Tlaltecuhtli 1a “knife variant,” an image found beneath cuauhxicalli and marked

by a single blade emerging from the center of the open mouth (Figure 3). As Gutiérrez

Solana addresses specific reliefs individually, emphasizing their details and the

differences among them, the study provides an interesting counterpart to this thesis,

which focuses more on similarities within broad categories as well as the overarching

themes of Tlaltecuhtli iconography.

Matos Moctezuma (1997) provides an extensive and reliable analysis of the

iconographic features that distinguish Tlaltecuhtli variants from one another. Matos

Moctezuma states that his study included twenty-nine pieces bearing thirty total

representations of Tlaltecuhtli, though only twenty of these are published in his article.

It is important to note here that a thorough corpus of Tlaltecuhtli imagery has yet to be

published, an enterprise whose findings would substantially facilitate research of the

deity. With his corpus of thirty images, Matos Moctezuma concludes that there are

four categories of images: (1) zoomorphic females (Figures 1-3); (2) anthropomorphic

females (Figures 4-5); (3) anthropomorphic males (Figures 6-7); and (4) Tlalocoid

figures (Figure 34). Through his detailed focus on iconography, Matos Moctezuma is

the first to separate what he calls “anthropomorphic males” from “Tlalocoid” figures

(both of which are combined under Nicholson’s “Tlalocoid” classification). The

former figures wear the Teotihuacan Storm God headdress and mouth mask but lack

goggles, a fact that Matos Moctezuma believes to weaken a straightforward “Tlaloc”

identification. The latter group, on the other hand, is seen as more directly allied with

Tlaloc imagery, wearing the proper headdress, mouthpiece, and goggles of this rain
 10

god. Overall, Matos Moctezuma approaches Tlaltecuhtli imagery in a cautious and

measured manner and, in many ways, it is his division of earth variants that guides this

thesis.

An article by Baquedano and Orton (1990) outlines the possibility of using a

Structural basis to create conceptual categories of Tlaltecuhtli imagery.2 In this study,

the authors first identify 145 different iconographic elements present in

representations of Tlaltecuhtli (Ibid:22-23) and apply “Jaccard’s Coefficient” to the

group, thereby allowing the authors to plot the statistical relationships among

Tlaltecuhtli images based on the presence or absence of these variables. According to

the clustering of Tlaltecuhtli images in these charts, Baquedano and Orton divide

Tlaltecuhtli imagery into two thematic clusters: fertility and sacrifice. In an earlier

article that appears to predate this Structuralist approach, Baquedano reaches a similar

conclusion: “It is my contention that one group of Tlaltecuhtli sculptures represent

[sic] mainly aspects of fertility and earth deities, and the other group is related mainly

to warfare and human sacrifice” (1988:159). One of the great strengths of the later

work is that Baquedano and Orton use 37 different sculptures for comparison. Such a

broad corpus of images not only helps in the investigation of thematic divisions, but

also allows for a more complete identification of individual variables or elements. This

study is also unique in its specific focus on individual iconographic symbols that

2
This article summarizes work first presented in Baquedano’s doctoral dissertation, entitled
Aztec Death Sculpture, submitted to the Institute of Archaeology, University College,
University of London, 1989.
 11

comprise Tlaltecuhtli images and thereby sets a high standard for the thorough

identification of such elements.

In Baquedano’s (1988) earlier study, the placement of iconographically identical

Tlaltecuhtli forms in both the sacrifice and fertility categories to a certain degree

undermines the argument for strict categorical division. The underside of the Bilimek

pulque vessel (Figure 2a), for instance, is placed in the “fertility group” while the

Tlaltecuhtli images on the Teocalli (Figure 1b) and “The Stone of the Five Suns”

(Figure 1e) are placed in the “sacrifice group,” despite the fact that all three

representations are marked by an open jaw. Two identical images of what Baquedano

refers to as “Tlaloc-Tlaltecuhtli” are similarly treated. As the categories of fertility and

sacrifice can potentially be seen as two sides of the same coin—both wrapped up in

themes of death and rebirth, blood sacrifice, and the earth’s fertility—one needs

clearer grounds for separating the two. Baquedano’s study proposes an interesting

argument, that the iconographic division of Tlaltecuhtli imagery is based on the

conceptual ways in which the Aztecs viewed the earth (either as a great, fecund creator

or a violent destroyer). What needs clarification is the iconographic application of

Baquedano and Orton’s thematic divisions through a statement of the ways in which

their Structuralist classification dovetails into and bolsters the thematic division of

sacrifice and fertility. As will be seen in the current study, these are important

concepts in the imagery of the earth, and their role in the classification of Tlaltecuhtli

merits further research.

 12

1.3 The Devil is in the Details

One avenue of study that remains open and in need of research is the

significance of the details within Tlaltecuhtli imagery. Baquedano and Orton (1990)

certainly pave the way for this kind of a study by identifying 145 different

iconographic elements present in Tlaltecuhtli iconography. However, in this study

such variables are viewed as markers distinguishing Tlaltecuhtli variants from one

another rather than as specific units of meaning. As a result there is no discussion

about the deeper significance of these elements or what their presence or absence from

Tlaltecuhtli images means. Klein (1976:57 f.n.1) argues against the relevance of such

details in discussions of Tlaltecuhtli imagery. As she states, “There is, however, no

observable pattern in the distribution of these various attributes which were more or

less interchangable [sic]. It is evident, therefore, that there was little formal distinction

made between the various aspects of the female earth monster…” (Ibid.).

The argument of this thesis is that the various details of individual Tlaltecuhtli

forms are anything but randomly distributed and, instead, carry important symbolic

information. Details like coyote tails, spotted paper banners, and skulls lashed onto

elbows and knees are not equally used by all Tlaltecuhtli categories and instead show

a distinct pattern, indicating that each is meaningful in its own right. Therefore, one

aspect of the current thesis is to dissect Tlaltecuhtli imagery to its smallest units of

meaning, or icons, to determine the symbolic meaning behind varying Tlaltecuhtli

forms (see Appendix 1). Such a study builds on the work of both Nicholson (1967,

1972) and Matos Moctezuma (1997) by organizing the iconographic categories they
 13

establish into their constituent parts; it also attempts to lend significance to the

variables identified by Baquedano and Orton (1990) by interpreting their meanings.

Addressing specific units of iconography in Tlaltecuhtli imagery approaches the

more elemental system of Structuralism. Kubler’s (1967) linguistic model by which he

interpreted Teotihuacan art and symbolism illustrates the more extreme end of such a

methodology. In this study, Kubler deals with separate motifs as a hierarchical

grammar of individual signs. The main problem with such a system is that it

frequently isolates individual elements into arbitrary fragments. As Pasztory states,

“While this analysis is extremely useful in pointing out an aspect of Teotihuacan

iconography not previously defined, the atomistic structure it implies is hard to

reconcile with the nature of other, comparable, pre-Columbian religions” (1972:147).

The benefit of the study of specific iconographic elements is that it offers insights not

only into their individual meanings, but into the meanings demonstrated by the

patterns of their use and recombination.

The strength of Kubler’s methodology is the close, cautious reading of

Teotihuacan symbols. Pasztory, despite her misgivings about the atomistic quality of

some of Kubler’s analysis, admits the utility of such an approach, but only as a

substitute for texts in cases where written documents prove unavailable. She argues,

“The linguistic model used by Kubler to describe Teotihuacan iconography would be

equally useful in the analysis of Post-Classic Central Mexican iconography, but

because of the greater amount of available textual information, it has been less

necessary to resort to it” (1972:147). Interestingly, some of the most influential

 14

Structuralist-based iconographic decipherments have come from Teotihuacan,

generally because of the absence of written sources at the site (Pasztory 1974; Von

Winning 1987). I agree that the linguistic model may be too specific in its current

form, which sometimes breaks apart patterns into unrecognizable units. Nevertheless,

the need for close iconographic study remains crucial in the case of the Aztecs, even

though written sources are often available. As Carrera notes, the sixteenth-century

written record has often led authors to consider Aztec art and sculpture as secondary in

importance, a tool for corroboration rather than a source in and of itself (1979:3). In

the case of Tlaltecuhtli, however, the sixteenth-century written record provides little

information about iconographic variation or the visual expression of the deity. An in

depth examination of the manifestations of Tlaltecuhtli in art is, therefore, the only

way to access the more subtle meanings and details of this deity.

Koontz explains the purpose of a Structuralist approach like Kubler’s as a means

of separating iconographic elements from assumptions about their meaning “in order

to describe the object of analysis in its own terms” (1994:19-20). He also, however,

describes the drawbacks of such a methodology, “…they do not generate an

interpretation, but instead they point to the abstract scaffold of the iconographic

system. Structural analysis, pursued to this point, is in fact a methodological fiction, or

a heuristic device used to counter vague, impressionistic notions of meaning offered

by more ‘intuitive methods’” (Ibid.). In other words, the Structuralist method breaks

down when questions of meaning arise. Therefore, the imagery of Tlaltecuhtli must be

considered in a manner that combines structure with interpretation, though this

 15

interpretation must necessarily be supported with clear iconographic evidence. A

modified version of the Structuralist model, which appreciates individual elements and

the patterns of their recombination as encoded units of meaning would allow for a

more detailed understanding of the symbolism of Tlaltecuhtli imagery. Such a

modification replaces the sterility of a pure Structuralist approach with the subjective

interpretation necessary to glean meaning from iconographic variation.

1.4 Methodology

With such detailed studies as those of Nicholson (1954, 1967, 1972), Gutiérrez

Solana (1983), Matos Moctezuma (1997), and Baquedano and Orton (1990;

Baquedano 1988) available, the question, then, is what avenue of study researchers of

Tlaltecuhtli should pursue. One subject that needs reevaluation is the number of

Tlaltecuhtli variants. While the argument and method of this thesis are indebted to the

tradition of both Nicholson (1954, 1967, 1972) and Matos Moctezuma (1997), my

preference is for only two Tlaltecuhtli variants rather than three or four. As a result,

this study merges into one category (referred to as “Tlaltecuhtli 1”) the

“anthropomorphic female” and “zoomorphic female” groups of Matos Moctezuma,

referred to as the female head variant and jaw variant by Nicholson (1967, 1972).

Also, while this study utilizes the division provided by Matos Moctezuma between

figures without goggles (“anthropomorphic males”) from those with goggles

(“Tlalocoid”), the latter—seen in only two relief images—is considered a deity variant

outside of pure Tlaltecuhtli imagery and thus beyond the categories set forth by this

thesis.
 16

In this study, variants of Tlaltecuhtli are separated into their component parts in a

modified version of the Structuralist approach, both into a gross division of what

details distinguish Tlaltecuhtli 1 from Tlaltecuhtli 2 as well as into smaller subgroups

that address the internal variation present in these categories. This approach

foregrounds details and privileges patterns of exchange. Elements restricted to an

individual form are deemed as important as those that constitute shared forms. This

makes use of Structuralism and its positive contributions, but its purportedly objective

goals are viewed with suspicion when applied to a subject with so much interpretive

scope. Therefore, Structural analysis and iconographic study are combined with

cautious interpretations that look to cross-cultural studies in cases where such

comparisons are useful or enlightening. It is beyond the scope of this study to address

the broader social or religious implications of Tlaltecuhtli imagery; instead, my work

intends to lay down a strong, detailed, and heavily supported iconographic framework

to help future researchers face these questions in a more confident and thorough

manner. I do not address gender relationships or state sponsored religion (for that, see

Klein 1988, 1994), but instead focus upon the details and misconceptions of the earth

that have become so entrenched in the literature.

As the boundaries of iconographic study in Aztec imagery often overlap into

confusing gray areas, I have decided to focus strictly on images of Tlaltecuhtli,

specifically those in stone relief, rather than imagery of the earth in general. In this

study, comparisons with other earth deities are employed carefully and I avoid

conflation of such deities to minimize confusion. One of the most important aspects of
 17

iconographic study that is lacking in most analyses of Tlaltecuhtli imagery is the

establishment of initial parameters. Authors describing Tlaltecuhtli rarely, if ever, state

in explicit terms what they deem to be the necessary characteristics that make an

image identifiable as the earth deity. Therefore, while there is a general implicit

agreement as to what Tlaltecuhtli looks like, the rules that govern what images get

included in works on the earth deity are not described. One of the best ways to

determine such parameters is to use a large corpus of images for comparison. With a

large corpus, one can begin to decide what diagnostic elements make an image a

viable candidate for comparative study. Therefore, in this thesis, I bring together

thirty-five images of Tlaltecuhtli and eight additional variant representations, with the

intent of offering future scholars a collection of images with which they can more

efficiently and effectively pursue their research.

1.5 Outline of study

In this thesis, I initially address the general ways in which the Aztecs conceived

of the earth. First, I focus on the knotty question of gender, determining if, indeed,

Tlaltecuhtli was considered a sexually ambiguous deity, a characteristic so often cited

in contemporary literature. In fact, iconographic evidence indicates that Tlaltecuhtli

had two distinct forms, one female and one male. The first I refer to as “Tlaltecuhtli

1,” the second “Tlaltecuhtli 2.” It must be understood, however, that these genders

were never mixed, that Tlaltecuhtli’s sex was always clearly marked. This

fundamental concept of a dual earth is reflected in Tlaltecuhtli’s ambivalent

personality, which combines themes of life and production with death and
 18

consumption. Tlaltecuhtli is at once a great sacrificial victim as well as a great

proponent of sacrifice. Dualism is also demonstrated by the pairing of Tlaltecuhtli

with the sun, both in myth and in ritual. Though often believed to be a lesser partner of

the sun, Tlaltecuhtli in fact played as important a role in Aztec cosmology as this solar

figure. The importance of the earth in Aztec belief is further established by the Templo

Mayor, which, I argue, combines the dual opposition of sun and water with a

simultaneous triadic arrangement among Tlaloc, Huitzilopochtli, and Tlaltecuhtli.

In Chapter 3, I establish the parameters of general Tlaltecuhtli imagery, the first

step in a two-tiered system of defining Tlaltecuhtli. The second step deals with the

particular characteristics of Tlaltecuhtli 1 and 2 (see Appendix 1). In this study, to be

considered Tlaltecuhtli, images must have the following three features: they must be

two-dimensional, depicted in a straight-on view, and show the deity in the hocker3

position. Once this rough category is established, one can approach the topic of

variants, namely the particular iconographic features of Tlaltecuhtli 1 and 2.

Chapter 4 examines the first of these variants, the female earth (Figures 1-5).

Tlaltecuhtli 1 images are shown to display masked elbows and knees, a skull and

crossbones skirt, malinalli hair, clawed hands and feet, and striated bracelets and

anklets. Tlaltecuhtli 1a, the jaw variant, is represented in both frontal and dorsal poses.

The first of these show the chalchihuitl or preciousness symbol and skirts either as

architectural features or bowls (Figure 2). The dorsal pose of Tlaltecuhtli 1a, on the

3
A term coined by Covarrubias (1971) referring to a position in which the arms and legs of a
figure are bent and splayed. This term is considered useful because it does not connote
particular associations or infer meaning.
 19

other hand, displays a skull ornament and back apron, plain paper banners attached to

the wrists, coyote tails attached to the legs, and sometimes insects crawling through

her hair (Figure 1). Of these features, the Tlaltecuhtli 1a “knife variant” (Figure 3)

shows only the back apron with the skull, but, unlike all other Tlaltecuhtli 1a

representations, she wears skulls lashed onto her arms and legs. Tlaltecuhtli 1b

(Figures 4-5), along with the general features of all Tlaltecuhtli 1 representations,

shows an upside-down female head. This figure is only shown in the dorsal pose and

displays spotted paper banners and coyote tails attached to her wrists and legs. Like

the Tlaltecuhtli 1a “knife variant,” Tlaltecuhtli 1b sometimes has skulls tied onto her

arms and legs, and, like dorsal Tlaltecuhtli 1a, she sometimes is shown with insects in

her hair.

Chapter 5 addresses Tlaltecuhtli 2 (Figures 6-7), a male representation of the

earth easily differentiated from Tlaltecuhtli 1 forms. With an upright head wearing a

Teotihuacan-style Storm God headdress and mouthpiece, Tlaltecuhtli 2 displays

features, for the most part, distinct from those of Tlaltecuhtli 1. The only exceptions

are the skulls held in his hands and tied onto his arms and legs. He wears a large

circular shield marked by a quincunx, boots with upturned toes, and a loincloth. His

arms are outlined with double scrollwork and his thumbs are shown with claws,

though the rest of his fingers are shown in a naturalistic manner. All of these features

appear to have been drawn from non-Aztec sources, including Teotihuacan, El Tajín,

and possibly even the Maya area.

 20

To the question, “Why have two Tlaltecuhtli forms?” I wager some provisional

remarks in the Conclusion, addressing the multiple ethnic identity of the Aztecs and

Tlaltecuhtli imagery as a visual expression of the Aztec struggle for personal

identification. This study continues along the path forged by scholars like Nicholson

(1954, 1967, 1972), Gutiérrez Solana (1983), Matos Moctezuma (1997), and

Baquedano and Orton (1990; Baquedano 1988) by laying out a basic framework that

addresses not only the broad divisions among Tlaltecuhtli variants but also the specific

significance behind their smaller details. Hopefully, with such an outline in place,

subsequent scholars can proceed into the more conceptual realm. To understand the

Aztec view of the universe, one must first seek an understanding of their earth, the

four-quartered world in which they lived. This study hopes, at the very least, to

provide a roadmap of this world, with the anticipation that the further details of its

topography will be filled in with time and future research.

 Chapter 2: Aspects of the Earth— Gender and the Aztec Worldview

2.1 Gender: Duality versus Ambiguity

When examining the way in which the Aztecs viewed their earth, one of the first

issues that needs resolution is the deity’s gender. Discussed, referenced, mentioned,

but rarely argued in depth, the sex of Tlaltecuhtli remains a contested and

contradictory subject in contemporary literature. While some authors describe the

deity as a sexually ambiguous being, others state that she is entirely female or male.

As gender is so often stated rather than argued, however, it is often difficult for

scholars to approach the topic in a confident way.

In order to address questions of gender, a clear distinction first needs to be made

between a dual-gendered earth and an ambiguously gendered earth. Studies of Aztec

deities sometimes blend the two concepts by using these terms interchangeably, so it is

crucial that such terminology be defined. To clarify, gender duality holds male and

female genders to be separate categories of identity and emphasizes the importance of

their differences. Gender ambiguity, on the other hand, understands gender as a

flexible category in which male and female are combined and blended.

Very few authors, like Joyce (2000), argue for a true redefinition of gender

identities and for fluidity between gender categories. Joyce argues that gender for the

Aztecs was not determined by sex at birth, but rather was created through

performance, which at times produced blended male/female gender categories.

Although the Aztecs certainly used performance to initiate the young into their adult

gender roles, this performance never appears to have created an ambiguous gender

21
 22

identity. Performance seems instead to have reestablished and reinforced the sharp

distinction between male and female rather than allowing for negotiation between

gender roles. In arguing for the potential of gender ambiguity in the Aztec world, it is

also important to distinguish between human and supernatural figures in art and myth.

Supernaturals are capable of many things considered out of the ordinary for humans,

and therefore caution must be used when applying the gendering of deities to human

social roles. Part of the issue lies in the application of modern gender theory to the

social structure of a culture we do not entirely understand, projecting contemporary

models of behavior onto a society that may never have considered gender a negotiable

category. The benefit of Joyce’s work, however, is that it opens the dialogue and the

debate, calling for all authors to discuss and prove their contentions about gender

rather than relying on traditional views of sexual division as self-evident.

Gender duality does not argue against the combination of genders in single

figures; it rather considers such combinations as emphasizing, rather than blurring,

gender difference. As studies by Klein (1988, 1993, 1994, 2000) into the relationships

between men and women in the Aztec world have shown, such a culture thrived on the

joining of concepts otherwise considered opposites. This duality was a crucial part of

Aztec life. Maleness, in general, was associated with the Aztec state, warfare, power,

control, the dry season, and day. Femaleness, on the other hand, was frequently

considered a potential threat to the state, associated with chaos, creation, moisture, the

rainy season, and night. These categories at all times remained strictly opposed, even

when joined in a single deity. Like the symbol of yin and yang, the power of the
 23

combined image lies in its clear distinctions, the two halves that create a whole. In the

case of Tlaltecuhtli, there were two earths, one male and one female, in which gender

markings and distinctions were never combined. Tlaltecuhtli, therefore, had a dual

gender rather than an ambiguous one.

2.1.1 Gender Ambiguity in the Case of Tlaltecuhtli

One of the most often cited characteristics of Tlaltecuhtli is the deity’s alleged

gender ambiguity. Some authors explicitly refer to the ambiguous gender of this deity

(see, for instance, Pasztory 1983; Klein 1980; Gutiérrez Solana 1983; Miller and

Taube 1993; Carrera 1979:178; Baquedano 1989:195; Garibay 1958:75) while others

alternately refer to her as male or female without specifically addressing gender

identity (see, for instance, Arnold 1999). In their editorial comments on the work of

Ruiz de Alarcón, for instance, Andrews and Hassig (Ruiz de Alarcón 1984:238) define

“Tlalteuctli” as “Lord-of-the-Land,” and state, “In classical times, Tlalteuctli was an

earth god.” Though they describe Tlaltecuhtli as male, they acknowledge the

contradiction between this identification and that of Ruiz de Alarcón himself, who

consistently “…treats Tlalteuctli as a feminine entity, addressing her as nonan (“my

mother,” i.e., “my lady”)” (Ibid.). Heyden (1971:160), for her part, explains combined

genders as a feature of most creator deities, while González Torres uses the term

“androgynous” (1985:138) to describe Tlaltecuhtli, a term which would imply

undefined gender rather than a dual male/female identity. A number of authors use the

word “bisexual” to describe Tlaltecuhtli (see, for instance, Fox 1993; Nicholson 1971,

1993; Klein 1980:162; Nicholson and Quiñones Keber 1983:61; Heyden 1971:168),
 24

but because this term relates to sexual preference rather than gender, its use is avoided

here.

Some authors argue for a fully female identification of Tlaltecuhtli. “As the

archetype of fertility, birth, and nurture, she was logically conceived of as a female

and a mother” (Klein 1973:71). Throughout Mesoamerica, ethnographic sources

demonstrate that the earth and earth deities are generally conceptualized as female.

Both contemporary Huichol (see Zingg 1977) and Nahua (see Sandstrom 1991)

groups, for instance, discuss the earth and earth deities as, for the most part, female.

The Tzotzil are no different: “The Earth is the mother of universal life. She is the most

compelling power in the universe. She is the supreme power. All others seem to form

part of her or to have proceeded from her depths” (Guiteras-Holmes 1961:189).

Worldwide, the earth is often assumed to have a female identity, despite the fact that

several notable civilizations, including the Egyptians, believed in a male earth. A

female identity for Tlaltecuhtli is often argued in opposition to the male earth, the

crocodilian cipactli, from whose primordial form Tlaltecuhtli was conceived. As

Brundage argues, “When formed into a primitive version of the earth, this dragon

[Cipactli] was generally conceived as female and was known as Tlaltecuhtli, Earth

Lady” (1979:31). Klein goes into more detail about the iconographic differences

between the two forms. “Both her invariable frontal form and strictly feminine pose

thus distinguish [Tlaltecuhtli] clearly from the earth crocodile deity Cipactli, who was

regarded as male and who always appears in profile form in two-dimensional Post-

Classic images” (1973:70).

 25

When the bi-gendered nature of Tlaltecuhtli is argued, it is generally on the basis

of one of four pieces of evidence that seem to indicate that the deity was, at least

partially, conceived of as male. The first is the use of the phrase “father, mother” when

addressing the deity. The second is the description of Tlaltecuhtli found in the Histoire

du Mechique which states, “There was a goddess called Tlalteutl, the earth itself, who,

according to some, had the figure of a man, while others say that she was a woman”

(Garibay 1973:105).1 The third piece of evidence used to support a bi-gendered

identity is the wearing of the male maxtlatl loincloth by what otherwise appear to be

female images. The final argument, one that is implicit where the first are explicit, is

the translation of “Tlaltecuhtli” as “earth lord.”

The relevance of the first of these arguments, the fact that Tlaltecuhtli is often

addressed as “father, mother,” is refuted by Heyden, who discusses this word pairing

as a means of formal address, an honorific rather than an indication of actual gender

identity (Durán 1994:59 f.n.2). The second argument, which deals with the quote from

the Histoire du Mechique, does seem to indicate that there was some disagreement

over whether Tlaltecuhtli was male or female. Rather than arguing that the deity was

bi-gendered, however, it instead seems to hint at a separation between those who

believed in a male earth and those who believed in a female earth or, more

interestingly, that there were two earths: one male and one female.

The third argument used by authors to support a dual-gendered identity of

Tlaltecuhtli is iconographic—the wearing of the male maxtlatl loincloth by otherwise

1
All translations from Spanish sources are by the author.
 26

female Tlaltecuhtli figures. A group of images found in the codex Borbonicus, for

instance, appear to show female Tlaltecuhtli figures wearing maxtlatl loincloths. As

Nicholson (1967) and Klein (1976:55-56 f.n.1) point out, however, these garments

may also be interpreted as the back aprons so often worn by earth goddesses. These

otherwise female goddesses are therefore not shown in male garb as a sign of the

earth’s ambiguous gender, but are instead shown dressed in the back apron and skull

ornament so often used in Aztec art to indicate a female identity. Nicholson (1967:87)

also explores this topic in relation to the “Tlalocoid” Tlaltecuhtli group, which

displays a maxtlatl, as a possible male variant of the earth deity (Figures 6-7). As there

are no female markers shown by this Tlaltecuhtli category, however, such loincloths

appear to represent a different earth, a male earth, rather than a bi-gendered earth. Like

the quote from the Histoire du Mechique (Garibay 1973:105), one sees indications of

two earths, one male and one female, each depicted with the garments proper to its

gender.

The fourth argument used to support gender ambiguity is generally implicit,

often underlying statements rather than explicitly stated as evidence: the translation of

“Tlaltecuhtli” as “earth lord” (see Matos Moctezuma 1997). This translation is taken

from such Spanish-Nahuatl dictionaries as that of Simeon, who translates “Tlaltecutli”

as “Señor de la tierra” (1977:605). Though the gender of Tlaltecuhtli indicated by

Simeon is clearly male, it must be understood as a result of the gendering of the

Spanish language (in which nouns are always sexed) rather than an innate Nahuatl

linguistic marker. Nahuatl is an ungendered language, and though “tecuhtli” is often

 27

attached to the names of male deities, it is used for goddesses, like Ilamatecuhtli, as

well.2 It should also be noted that, for the Spanish, the earth was “la tierra,” a feminine

entity, and therefore sixteenth-century Spanish accounts that include descriptions of

the earth may combine masculine translations of “tecuhtli” with a feminine linguistic

bias towards the earth, unconsciously designating Tlaltecuhtli as ambiguously

gendered.

The four arguments that are used to support an ambiguous gender for Tlaltecuhtli

are therefore problematic. The address “father, mother” is an honorific, while the

passage from the Histoire du Mechique indicates separate identities of the earth rather

than one earth that was considered to have an ambiguous gender. The troublesome

“loincloths” sometimes seen worn by female Tlaltecuhtli variants are more likely the

back-aprons characteristically worn by Aztec goddesses. Lastly, the seemingly

masculine gender implied by the root “tecuhtli” is a result of translation into a

gendered language rather than a Nahuatl gender marker. The ambiguous gender of the

earth deity is, therefore, not supported in either literature or iconography.

2.1.2 The Dual-Gendered Earth

In iconography, Tlaltecuhtli’s gender is very clearly marked. Neither entirely

female nor a blend of masculine and feminine features, Tlaltecuhtli was an earth

conceived of in two ways: one female and one male. The former I refer to as

2
As Jonathan Amith notes (pers. comm. 2004), “tecuhtli” might be better understood as a
status marker rather than one of gender: “My guess is that tecutli referred to persons, entities,
places, etc. that were in a higher, lordly position over another of the same.” Tlaltecuhtli would
thus be understood as the highest status of the earth deities.
 28

“Tlaltecuhtli 1” (Figures 1-5), the latter as “Tlaltecuhtli 2” (Figures 6-7). This dual

gender of the earth should not be misunderstood as ambiguous, however, for the male

and female versions of the earth are completely distinct from one another. Because

gender is so clearly marked in representations of the earth, arguments of gender

ambiguity and discussions of the earth as strictly male or strictly female are equally

untenable.

When Tlaltecuhtli 1 is shown, the figure is clearly marked as female, generally

with a skull back rack or a skull and crossbones skirt. The splayed hocker position,

which is discussed in the next chapter, is also widely understood as a birth position,

another indicator of a female identity. The back ornament in particular is used as an

element of female costuming in Aztec art and is, primarily, a female marker. For

example, on the stones of Moctezuma I and Tizoc two female captives wear back skull

ornaments with aprons (Figure 8a), while the other male captives on the stone lack

these elements. Similarly, on the Fonds mexicain 20 the accoutrement of the female

cihuateteo is distinguished from that of their male ahuiateteo counterparts by the skull

back ornament and apron (Figure 8b). Therefore, such skulls and aprons served in

Aztec art as a means of differentiating female from male figures. The skull and

crossbones skirt is also widely understood to be a female garment, worn by goddesses

associated with the earth as well as by the cihuateteo and tzitzimime (Klein 2000).

Statements like “in tonan, in tota, in tonatiuh in tlaltecutli,” which translate as “our

mother, our father, the sun, the lord of the earth” (Sahagún 1950-82[VI]:12), also

support a female identity. Since the sun is an unequivocally male figure, he must
 29

represent the “tota” part of this invocation, leaving “tonan” (“our mother”) to

Tlaltecuhtli.

While Tlaltecuhtli 1 is thus clearly marked as female, Tlaltecuhtli 2 (Figures 6-7)

is just as clearly male. He wears a male maxtlatl and bears no feminine symbols. His

face mask is never seen worn by female deities and neither are his headdress or

pointed boots. In reaction to iconography potentially marking some Tlaltecuhtli

images as male, Nicholson concludes that “…most of the available evidence suggests

that in late pre-Hispanic Central Mexico the earth in general and the earth monster in

the mamazouhticac position in particular was usually conceived to be female and

depicted wearing the costume proper to that sex. A male aspect of this element was

also recognized… and occasionally represented in appropriate garb—but was

apparently quite subordinate to the more fundamental and pervasive female

conception” (1967:87). It is true that, in most regions where the earth is female, there

are also present various lesser male earth deities, but the consistency of Tlaltecuhtli 2

imagery and the interchangeability between Tlaltecuhtli 1 and 2 forms, each of which

is shown with equal regularity beneath objects like feathered serpents, indicate that

this pairing is not a hierarchical one. Therefore, I agree with Nicholson’s statement,

but not with the qualifiers “occasionally” or “subordinate.” I rather believe, for

reasons that will be discussed in the conclusion of this thesis, that the Aztecs depicted

their earth in two very different ways: one male and one female. Neither, however,

was ever blended with the markers of the opposite gender.

 30

In this thesis I address Tlaltecuhtli in gender-neutral terms when dealing with

general aspects of the earth and in situations where it is unclear whether it is

Tlaltecuhtli 1 or Tlaltecuhtli 2 being referenced by authors. Quotations, however, are

left unaltered, lest I attribute such conclusions to authors who disagree. In sixteenth-

century literature and myth the Aztec earth that one predominantly encounters is the

female earth (see, Ruiz de Alarcón 1984), though this may at times result from the

Spanish language gendering process. One therefore finds a female earth contrasted

against a male sun, embodying such oppositions as darkness and light, wet and dry,

night and day, etc. (see López Austín 1990:160). It is true that Aztec iconography

shows a male earth, Tlaltecuhtli 2, as equally important, but, as this deity form is a

composite of iconography from ancestral cultures, it is possible that the Aztecs did not

link it as closely to their origin myths as their more typically Mexica female earth.

One puzzling aspect of this dual earth is that there appears to be no correlation

between the gender of the earth and the object beneath which it was carved. Both

Tlaltecuhtli 1 and 2, for instance, are seen underneath feathered serpents. As Anita

Bobry states, this joining of Tlaltecuhtli with the feathered serpent symbolizes: “…the

earth as a whole; the lush, green feathers indicate the vegetation on the surface of the

earth, the earth monster the voracious swallower of the dead, represents its interior”

(cited by Pazstory 1976a:31 in Baquedano 1988:159). The role of the earth as the

consumer of the dead is referenced also by the presence of Tlaltecuhtli beneath boxes,

like the Hackmack box, that were most likely used as funerary urns. There appears to

be no rhyme or reason, however, to which Tlaltecuhtli variants appear under which

 31

objects. In other words, Tlaltecuhtli 1 is as likely to be found beneath a feathered

serpent or colossal figure as Tlaltecuhtli 2. As such an effort was made to distinguish

two differently gendered earths from one another, one would expect there to be

significance in which variants were placed under which objects. The patterns that

governed the use of the male and female earth, however, have yet to emerge.

2.2 Dismemberment and Rebirth: Themes of Reciprocity

Now that problems of gender have been addressed, one can proceed to examine

the general ways in which the Aztecs viewed the earth. By first understanding the role

that Tlaltecuhtli played in the mytho-history and cosmology of the Aztecs, one can

more easily decipher the meaning behind iconographic variation among visual

representations of the deity. For the Aztecs the earth was alive, a conscious, coherent

being with the ability to both create and destroy, nourish and starve. This ambivalent

temperment towards mankind is a direct result of the earth’s creation, a myth retold in

the Histoire du Mechique (Garibay 1973) in which the earth is depicted as a great,

primordial victim of sacrifice who, as a result of her abuses, cries out for human blood

as a means of compensation.

In the Histoire du Mechique, the earth begins as a great monster walking upon

the primordial sea (Garibay 1973:108). Tezcatlipoca and Quetzalcoatl, taking the form

of two snakes, set upon this creature and tear it limb from limb. The gods then use half

of Tlaltecuhtli’s body to create the earth while the other half is taken up to become the

sky. The other gods, appalled at this violent dismemberment of the earth,

“…descended to console her and commanded that all the fruits necessary for the life
 32

of mankind generate from her” (Ibid.). From this moment, all living things sprout from

Tlaltecuhtli’s body, trees and grass from the deity’s hair and skin, caves and lakes

from the deity’s eyes. Despite such hearty reparation from the gods, however,

Tlaltecuhtli ever after cries out in the night for blood and human victims. “This

goddess at times cried out in the night, yearning to eat the hearts of men, and she

would not quiet herself as long as they were not given to her, nor would she give fruit

unless quenched with the blood of men” (Ibid.). Taube states, “As a result, humans

had to nourish Tlaltecuhtli with their own hearts and blood to placate the violated

earth” (2004:170).

This mythic dismemberment of the earth is seen in several contexts related to

earth goddesses and may even have been reenacted at the Ochpaniztli rites,

ceremonies devoted to the primary Aztec earth goddess, Teteo Innan. One of the most

notable characteristics of the Ochpaniztli rites is the use of a pole sacrifice in which

victims were led to the tops of poles standing one-hundred-eighty feet high (this may

be an exaggeration on the part of Durán) and then pushed off. Durán describes the

victim’s death: “He fell from the poles with a mighty crash and was shattered to

bits”(1971:234). After this fall (and presumed death), the victims were beheaded.

Their blood was caught in a bowl from which the priest—dressed in the deity

impersonator’s flayed skin—drank, causing the earth to quake (Ibid:235).

This type of sacrifice by dismemberment also recalls the death of Coyolxauhqui,

albeit in reverse order, in which Coyolxauhqui was decapitated by Huitzilopochtli and

thrown down the side of Coatepec. A depiction of the dismembered Coyolxauhqui at

 33

the Templo Mayor that predates the famous Coyolxauhqui stone presents the goddess

with her four detached limbs aligned to the cardinal directions. As Taube states,

“Coyolxauhqui is rendered as the earth, dismembered and fashioned into a new,

ordered world. The birth of Huitzilopochtli was thus associated with the creation of

both the Aztec sun and its earthly domain: from the dismembered Coyolxauhqui and

the bodies of vanquished enemies, the Aztec world was made” (2004:174). Therefore,

the dismemberment and decapitation of sacrifices to Teteo Innan at Ochpaniztli as

well as that of Coyolxauhqui at the hill of Coatepec, may reference the first act of

cosmic creation in which the body of the earth was torn apart to create the world of

humankind.

For Graulich, the Tlaltecuhtli creation myth “…explain[s] the origin of the earth,

heaven—or a part of it—and of plants, but also the need for human sacrifice and, in all

probability, for death” (1997:51; see also Graulich 1988:576). This dismemberment of

the earth goddess as a preliminary step of world creation and production is also

discussed by Matos Moctezuma:

The story of Tlaltecuhtli, ‘earth lord,’… dramatizes how the creation of

the earth was formed from a coherent bodily structure… while the
landscape was conceived as a corporeal entity—a living being—it was
the destruction or reformation of that being that was required to
promote a wider spectrum of life. Life, in the Aztec cosmogony, was
not composed of a unified body but rather as a result of the violent
actions of destruction; of tearing a body apart to create new
combinations of matter sustaining a plurality of beings. (1995:39)

In many ways, the myth of the earth’s creation is the model for the Aztec view

of their world—the mutual dependence of life and death and the inextricable

connection between human sacrifice and the survival of humankind.

 34

2.3 First the Good News, Then the Bad:

Throughout the Americas, cultures perceive of dismemberment as a creative

force. Gillespie, for instance, points out that “…the Mesoamerican worldview shared

in the nearly universal theme of dismemberment as a source of primordial creation and

fertility” (1991:333-334). That the earth itself was associated with themes of fertility,

life, and agriculture is emphasized by Klein: “As an essentially female construct, the

earth and all of its numerous representatives and inhabitants were associated with

fertility, birth, and motherhood. The earth herself was a deity of vegetation and rainfall

from whom all life received its nourishment” (1976:33). For the Aztecs, the earth was

all-producing, all-providing, generous and nurturing, giving birth to all things from its

own flesh and body (see also Baquedano 1989).

Although Tlaltecuhtli was viewed as the great creator and provider of human

life, the deity was also conceived of as a deadly force. Nuttall, for instance, writing at

the beginning of the twentieth century, focuses on the darker aspects of the earth: “It is

obvious how the constant associations of the earth-mother with sanguinary sacrifices

and bloodthirstiness would, in time, give rise to the idea of a hostile, maleficent

power, linked with darkness and devouring fire…” (1901:66). Brundage paints an

equally sinister picture: “…the earth, was pitiless and inhuman; she stood in a sense

beyond effective petition. Her will was to bring men, beasts and all growing things out

of her womb, to make them feel her hollow and echoing power… to feed them, to

frighten them, and then to call them, lurching and falling, back into the heart of her

darkness” (1972:96). In a later article Brundage describes the impact of the earth on
 35

the Aztecs as “…a religious seizure and a terror which had nothing intellectual about

it” (1979:154). Discussions of Tlaltecuhtli as a hostile and chaotic force may cause an

emphasis on the darker aspects of Tlaltecuhtli imagery over all else as a visual

expression of Aztec terror and fear. Descriptions of the earth as chaos incarnate—

“Tlalteotl3 is a savage beast; she is chaos…” (Graulich 1997:51; see also Graulich

1988:576 and Pasztory 1983:82)—may also lead one to assume that representations of

the earth might be similarly disorganized and arbitrary. Instead, representations of

Tlaltecuhtli are extremely structured, the exchange of elements governed by strict

rules and, especially in Tlaltecuhtli 2, an almost obsessive attention to consistency.

Perhaps this contrast between the chaotic Tlaltecuhtli of myth and the controlled

nature of the deity’s iconography may best be understood as a reflection of the earth’s

transition from a confused primordial form to its current ordered state. Through the

deity’s violent dismemberment, chaos was transformed into the patterns of life.

The Aztec earth was a balanced earth. Tlaltecuhtli had both negative and positive

aspects, each of which was as important as the other. Tlaltecuhtli was both a vibrant

earth and an earth that housed the dead. As Seler states, “The earth is an animal that,

on the one hand, carries trees and plants on its broad back and allows the corn plants

to grow… on the other hand, it is a monster that sucks up the water that drips from the

heavens, that swallows into its belly the bones of the dead and the sun as its [sic]

descends in the evening, and even the souls of the deceased” (1990-[V]:5). As were all

3
Tlalteotl, means “earth deity” and is equivalent to Tlaltecuhlti, though used far less
frequently. As Seler states, “Tlaltecutli, not tlalteotl is the standard expression for the divinity
of the earth” (1990-[III]:249).
 36

things for the Aztecs, the earth was a duality, a balanced entity of light and dark, life

and death, production and destruction. Consequently, one sees a dual earth in the

carved depictions of Tlaltecuhtli, in which the deity is surrounded by symbols of both

benevolence and malevolence.

2.4 The Hidden Earth: Tlaltecuhtli and the Sun

The duality inherent within the Aztec earth was echoed in the fundamental

pairing of the earth and the sun. Though many scholars focus on the singular role of

the sun in the lives of the Aztecs, the oft-overlooked earth played just as vital a role in

their worldview. This quintessential pairing reflects the fundamental principle of

duality with which the Aztecs viewed their world, a duality in which opposite forces

were considered two halves of a whole, equally necessary and mutually dependent

(López Austín 1988:52-53, 57; 1990:160,167-179). Female agrarian connections of

the rainy season were contrasted against the male dry season pastimes of warfare and

hunting (Klein 1976:33) and were even echoed in the division of night from day

(Graulich 1997:129-131). As Matos Moctezuma states, the Aztecs belonged to a

culture that was “…agrarian and military, that existed within a cyclical vision of the

universe, of night and day, of life and death, in which the rainy season, of growth, of

plants, of fertility, in a word, of life, alternated with a dry season in which it did not

rain and the plants lost their verdure, a time when the war gods gained importance…”

(1991:22). The duality of earth and sun were even reflected in the political

organization of the Aztec state in which the Tlatoani, associated with Huitzilopochtli,

the sun, and masculinity, was paired with an advisor called Cihuacoatl, a position
 37

linked to the earth and women (see López Austín 1988:76, 1990:169; Nuttall

1901:62). The joining of such oppositions was believed to form the basic framework

of the cosmos and their delicate balance was considered key to the existence of the

universe.

The role that the earth played vis à vis the sun is also wrapped up in oppositions.

On the one hand, the earth was the greatest enemy of the sun, consuming him at dusk

into the dark Underworld where he would have to undergo great battles to be reborn.

On the other hand, the earth was considered the mother of the sun, for he emerged

every morning from her womb at dawn.4 The birth of Huitzilopochtli at Coatepec

alludes to this relationship between the earth (represented by Coatlicue) and the sun

(represented by Huitzilopochtli). One might wonder how the earth can simultaneously

be the mother and enemy of the sun, but it must be remembered that the mother-child

relationship was conceived by the Aztecs as one of conflict. Birth was undertaken by a

woman as a warrior entering the battlefield: “Seize well thy little shield. My daughter,

my youngest one, be thou a brave woman; face it—that is, bear down; imitate the

brave woman Cihuacoatl, Quilaztli” (Sahagún 1950-82[VI]:160). This parental bond is

also seen in the metaphorical allusion to captives as the sons of their captors (Sahagún

1950-82[II]:52-53). Both in battle and in childbirth, the relationship between children

and their parents was envisioned as one of antagonism. It is thus easy to see how the

earth could have, at once, given birth to as well as battled against the sun.

4
Contemporary Huichol see all births as analogous to the birth of the sun: “When a woman
gives birth, they say she is giving light, like the rays of the sun. Every time a child is born it is
like the sun rising to complete another day” (Schaefer 1989:191)
 38

Perhaps part of the reason that Tlaltecuhtli is so often overlooked by authors is

that references to it in important sixteenth-century documents are frequently couched

in the poetics of the Nahuatl language. In Sahagún, for instance, it frequently appears

that Tlaltecuhtli is referred to as the sun: “May the eagle warrior, the ocelot warrior,

endure, live—he who is the gladdener, the servant of the sun. Somewhere, sometime,

thou wilt grant that they will follow the sun, Tlaltecuhtli” (1950-82[VI]:15). Rather

than a conflation of Tlaltecuhtli with the sun, this phrasing instead represents the

typical Aztec tradition of difrasismo, “…a process in which a single idea is expressed

through two words that complete its meaning, either by being synonyms or by being

adjacent” (Garibay 1970:115). These two aspects are frequently opposites,

representing the fundamental principle of duality by which the Aztecs viewed their

world. In this case, following the sun and Tlaltecuhtli refers to the impending death of

warriors, whose bodies will be swallowed by Tlaltecuhtli and whose souls will go to

accompany the sun to its zenith. The same analogy is made in the description of a

warrior as “…the noble one who will attain the lap, the bosom of the sun, Tlaltecuhtli”

(Ibid.:11). Despite the fact that the sun and earth are often paired in sixteenth-century

sources, very few authors pay as much attention to the earth as they do the sun

(Graulich 1988:396). However, as will be discussed below, the Aztecs held the sun

and earth in equal regard, for the universe was considered to be equally reliant on both

for its continued existence.

The sun is often portrayed in contemporary literature as the sole receiver of

human sacrifice when, in fact, the sixteenth-century sources almost always pair the
 39

sun and the earth as dual consumers of such offerings. For instance, according to

Durán, before their sacrifice by the Aztecs, a group of captured Huastec warriors were

called “Children of the Sun” and “Children of the Lord of the Earth” (1994:167; see

also Tezozomoc 1987:626). In the Leyenda de los Soles, the pairing of the sun and

earth is made clear in a tale in which the sun tells Mixcoatl and his four companions to

kill the four hundred Mimixcoa warriors “in order to nourish him and Tlaltecuhtli for

they were, he added, father and mother of mankind. These 400 who were exterminated

became the prototypes of the prisoners of war to be sacrificed…” (Graulich 1988:395).

In this story, then, explicit reference is made not only to the sun and the earth as dual

creators of mankind, but also to the fact that human sacrifice was intended to feed both

the sun and the earth. This may explain why cuauhxicalli, “eagle vessels” are

decorated with both sun and earth imagery, as they were considered joint consumers

of such sacrifices (Graulich 1988:398).

Therefore, though often overlooked by scholars, the purpose of war was as much

to feed the earth as it was to provide the sun with blood. This role is emphasized

throughout Sahagún. A midwife’s words to a newborn male child, for instance, were:

“[Y]our office and your purpose is war; your destiny is to give drink to the sun with

the blood of the enemies and to feed the earth, called ‘Tlaltecuhtli,’ with the bodies of

your enemies” (Matos Moctezuma 1995:27-28, citing Sahagún 1956). Warriors were

similarly described, “…they have been dedicated [on earth], there promised, born at

this time, sent to such a place to provide drink, to provide food, to provide offerings

for the sun, for the lord of the earth” (1950-82[VI]:12). The role of Tlaltecuhtli as the
 40

great consumer of human sacrifice is reflected in one of the Tlaltecuhtli 1 variants

(Figures 1-3), which shows a wide-open, toothy maw, ready to receive blood and the

bodies of the dead.

Graulich (1988) emphasizes the importance of double immolations as necessary

in feeding both the sun and the earth. Though the majority of sacrifices recorded in

sixteenth-century sources are described as performed by heart extraction, decapitation

was another popular form of sacrifice. In Durán, for instance, priests are said to have

told their victims “…you have come here to die [for Huitzilopochtli]5, to offer your

chests and your throats to the knife” (1994:157), thereby referring both to heart

sacrifice and decapitation. In general, however, the sixteenth-century accounts often

gloss over the rite of decapitation, a rite that may have accompanied most sacrifices

(Brundage 1979:212).6 Therefore, though Durán never mentions decapitation in his

lengthy description of the rituals that accompanied the dedication of the Templo

Mayor, his statement that the old tzompantli was destroyed and a new one was erected

for the numerous new sacrificial victims (1994:341) should be seen as a tacit

indication of the importance of decapitation in these dedication rites. The statement of

conquistador Andrés de Tapia that the tzompantli in the central precinct of

Tenochtitlan held 136,000 heads (Baquedano and Graulich 1993:164) similarly

indicates the commonality and importance of decapitation, even when the distinct
5
That this is a parenthetical addition on the part of the editor is likely, for Huitzilopochtli
(associated with the sun) was considered only half of the equation.
6
Such dual sacrifices also appear to have occurred in the Maya area: “…it is well to bear in
mind that decapitation at times followed removal of the heart” (Thompson 1970:179). As
Robicsek and Hales state, the iconography of Maya ceramic vases “…suggests that heart
sacrifice was connected to, and probably practiced together with, ritual decapitation”
(1984:50).
 41

probability of exaggeration is taken into account. That the Aztecs may have

considered decapitation rituals as important as rites of heart extraction is likely,

despite the fact that most authors cite decapitation as a rare exception in Aztec

religion, which only took place during specific festivals (see, for instance, González

Torres 1985:109).

Graulich discusses the reason why the Aztecs dedicated hearts to the sun and

heads to the earth: “The fact that the ritual immolation by excision of the heart was

directed more in particular to the sun was quite logical since the heart symbolized and

indeed was the movement the sun needed to keep going. It was a sacrifice to heavenly

fire and to carry it out only a flint knife could be used, for flint was or contained a

spark descended from heaven” (1988:401). For the Aztecs, the human heart was seen

as the seat of movement and heat, and therefore their dedication to the sun was

considered appropriate. “Decapitation, on the other hand generated streams of blood

that drenched the earth so that she ‘would bear fruit’, as promised in the creation

myths” (Baquedano and Graulich 1993:165; see also Graulich 1988:394). Blood, like

water, was needed to fertilize the earth, and therefore decapitation, on the one hand

perhaps echoing the initial dismemberment of the earth in creation myths, on the other

hand was used for the very practical purpose of soaking the earth with blood. These

double immolations may also be related to the fact that two of a person’s most

important life forces, the teyolia and the tonalli, were located in the heart and head,

respectively (López Austín 1988:204; Carrasco 1990:68-70).

 42

2.5 Tlaltecuhtli and the Templo Mayor:

The earth was, indeed, an important member of the Aztec pantheon, playing a

crucial role in the survival of mankind. Even the foundation myth of Tenochtitlan

refers to the joint involvement of sun and earth. For instance, the site of Tenochtitlan’s

first founding was born from the union of a heart, a solar symbol, with a stone, a

terrestrial symbol. “Know now that his heart fell upon a stone and from this sprang a

prickly pear cactus” (Durán 1994:41, 32-33, 42). That an eagle, avatar of the sun,

makes his home within this cactus, a plant which sprouts from the earth, echoes the

joining of the solar heart and terrestrial stone. That the earth was considered key in the

founding of Tenochtitlan is further evidenced by the image found on the back of the

Teocalli of Moctezuma (Figure 9), which shows the cactus, topped by an eagle, as

being born from a skull, probably referencing the great earth maw. This skull sits

within the abdomen of a supine goddess, most likely Chalchiuhtlicue. This image,

then, shows Tenochtitlan, born from the mouth of the earth, surrounded by the water

body of Chalchiuhtlicue, symbolic of Lake Texcoco (see Townsend 1979:56).

The earth was conceived in myriad ways. Before time, it took the shape of a

crocodilian figure floating in the midst of a primordial sea, and after time began, it was

the body of Tlaltecuhtli, again surrounded by a sea (León-Portilla 1963:14, 57).

Tenochtitlan, an island in the midst of a lake, recreated this cosmological model on a

smaller scale, while the Templo Mayor recreated both Tenochtitlan as well the earth in

general. It is clear that the Templo Mayor carried with it the same mixed associations

as Tlaltecuhtli. As Broda states, “…on the mythological level Templo Mayor, the
 43

sacred mountain, was the earth itself, the earth as a voracious monster devouring

human victims and blood. At the same time, the earth contained regenerative forces

that linked it to agricultural growth and fertility in general” (1987:105). This great

temple was considered a voracious monster, consuming the blood of the human

sacrifice that took place on its steps and platforms. As Arnold explains, “The Templo

Mayor was the site of an enormous earth opening. In particular it was the mouth of the

earth lord, Tlaltecuhtli, who would receive nourishment through blood sacrifices”

(1999:53). In return for sacrifice, the gods residing in the temples promised

agricultural growth, production, and the maintenance of the empire.

The base of the pyramid, its platform, may have represented the body of

Tlaltecuhtli, the corpses rolling down the steps of the double temple coming to rest

where the earth would be soaked with blood. Graulich provides an interesting

description of the double immolations that took place at the Templo Mayor: “…the

action consisting in beheading the victim and throwing it down to the earth was

inversely symmetrical to the extraction of the heart and its elevation toward the sun.

The terrace at the base of the pyramid where the body was to fall was called the

‘banquet table,’ in other words, the place where Tlaltecuhtli ate” (1988:402). The

Coyolxauhqui stone (Figure 10), which once lay at the base of the pyramid, shows the

goddess as a great victim of sacrifice, beheaded and dismembered by Huitzilopochtli.

This figure, however, also shows striking iconographic parallels to the earth, including

masked joints, skulls tied on to the elbows and knees, a skull-topped back apron, and

both wristlets and anklets, the anklets edged with bells. In this stone, therefore,
 44

Coyolxauhqui combines the symbols of sacrifice with the earth, who would have

received such sacrifices (see Broda 1987). The platform of the Templo Mayor should

therefore be understood as a great receptacle of blood and bodies, the “banquet table”

of Tlaltecuhtli and symbol of the earth itself.

With its twin temples to Tlaloc and Huitzilopochtli, the Templo Mayor

obviously represented themes of duality—night and day, rainy season and dry season,

agriculture and war (López Luján 1994 96; Matos Moctezuma 1984:133). The Aztecs,

however, structured their universe in multiple ways, using dual, triple, and even

quadripartite schemes (see Van Zantwijk 1985:22). The Aztecs thus utilized a triadic

model of earth, sky, and Underworld, as well as a triad of water, sun, and earth

alongside their more often cited framework of dual oppositions. The Templo Mayor,

then, was not only a dual structure, but simultaneously represented a triad. As Matos

Moctezuma states, “…the Templo possessed three elements necessary for life: earth

(the terrestrial level of the Templo and of Coatlicue), water (Tlaloc), and the sun

(Huitzilopochtli)” (1995:72). That these three deities were associated is seen in

Tezozomoc, who describes war captives as “…the sons of the Lord of the earth

Tlacteuctli, sons of the Sun, and sons of the God of water” (1987:626). Further

evidence for the Templo Mayor as a temple to these three deities comes from Díaz del

Castillo, who describes the temple as containing three idols, including Huitzilopochtli

and Tezcatlipoca , though the description of this latter deity, who had “a countenance

like a bear, and great shining eyes” indicates that he was probably Tlaloc, instead

([I]1927:179). The third deity is described as follows: “…we saw a figure half human
 45

and the other half resembling an alligator… This idol was said to contain the germ,

and origin of all created things, and was the god of harvest, and fruits” (Ibid.). This

final deity, then, is most likely a representation of Tlaltecuhtli.

One must remember that the most important role of Tlaltecuhtli, by far, was as

the earth itself. Though this may seem obvious, it is key in our understanding of this

figure. Tlaltecuhtli was considered all-pervasive, omnipresent. Just as images of

Tlaloc and Chalchiuhtlicue were placed where these deities would be found—atop

mountains and by sources of water— Tlaltecuhtli’s image was placed on the bottom of

objects, for Tlaltecuhtli was found beneath everything. It may be important to note

here that the first temple built to honor Huitzilopochtli was made of earth and crowned

with reeds, the symbolic body of Tlaltecuhtli: “By cutting out thick blocks of turf

laced with reeds from the marsh next to the cactus, they made a square platform that

was to serve as foundation for the shrine” (Durán 1994:44). It is important to note, too,

that sculptures depicting Tlaltecuhtli have, for the most part, been found at or around

the Templo Mayor (Baquedano and Orton 1990). The disproportionate amount of

Tlaltecuhtli figures found around the Templo Mayor may indicate that the presence of

Tlaltecuhtli was considered to be especially intense at this site (see Matos Moctezuma

1997:18). The Templo Mayor may therefore be understood as embracing two different

numerical models by which the Aztecs organized their cosmos; on the one hand it was

a duality, joining the images and associations of Tlaloc and Huitzilopochtli. On

another, perhaps deeper, level, the Templo Mayor represented a triad, the co-
 46

dependence of the aquatic Tlaloc and the solar Huitzilopochtli upon the terrestrial

Tlaltecuhtli.

2.6 Summary and Conclusions

Despite confusion that has arisen over gender terminology, it is clear that

Tlaltecuhtli’s gender was in no way ambiguous. Instead, it has been demonstrated that

the Aztecs conceived of their earth in two very different ways: one male and one

female. Despite the fact that both masculine and feminine variants of the earth existed,

however, gender markings are never combined but remain clear and non-

interchangeable. Such duality is inherent in conceptions of the earth, which was

viewed by the Aztecs as both all-producing and all-destroying, both a victim of

primordial sacrifice and its greatest proponent.

In sixteenth-century literature and myth, the female earth is frequently paired

with the male sun, a coupling that reveals the profound role the earth played in Aztec

cosmology. This duality of sun and earth was also reflected in the prevalence of

double immolation ceremonies in which heart extraction, dedicated to the sun, and

decapitation, dedicated to the earth, were combined. As such a study proves, the earth

played a key role in the way in which the Aztecs viewed their world. Though authors

often emphasize the importance of the sun, in reality it was a joint sun and earth that

provided the basis for Aztec cosmovision. One could not survive without the other.

The importance of the earth in Aztec belief is further emphasized by the fact that

the Templo Mayor itself may have been envisioned not merely as a duality, as is so

commonly thought, but also as a triad. In this way the Templo Mayor not only
 47

embraces the dual figures of Tlaloc and Huitzilopochtli, but represents, too, the pivotal

role of the earth in the basic triadic structure of the cosmos. In this temple, then, one

not only sees the powers of sun and water, but also the earth combined.
 Chapter 3: Towards an Iconographic Definition of Tlaltecuhtli

3.1 Who is Tlaltecuhtli?

Representations of Tlaltecuhtli often appear so various as to defy attempts at

categorization. This frequently fosters a feeling that iconography of the earth must be

approached in an almost instinctual way—that intuition is the only means of

determining which images do, in fact, represent the earth. Despite its seemingly

innumerable variations, however, Tlaltecuhtli imagery is extremely formulaic and

easily definable. What is needed is guidance, an establishment of parameters that

designate both the boundary around Tlaltecuhtli imagery in general, and also those

boundaries that differentiate Tlaltecuhtli variants from one another. Therefore, there

must be a two-tiered means of categorization. First, the question of what

characteristics are shared by all representations of Tlaltecuhtli, allows one to form a

broad category of earth imagery, setting the rules by which a corpus of comparative

images can be formed. Second, a more detailed definition of each Tlaltecuhtli group, 1

and 2 (see Appendix 1), allows for a more specific division among Tlaltecuhtli types.

In this study, in order to be considered a depiction of Tlaltecuhtli, an image must

have three features. It must be two-dimensional, depicted in a straight-on view, and

show the deity in the splayed body position known as the “hocker” position. The first

of these, two-dimensionality, may also be seen as determined by media, for full-

bodied representations of Tlaltecuhtli are only found in the Aztec codices and in stone

48
 49

reliefs.1 In the Aztec codices, one only finds images of Tlaltecuhtli 1a, at times

comprising part of the composite deity Tlalchitonatiuh (Figure 33). Due to the

infrequency and lack of variety in codex depictions of Tlaltecuhtli, however, as well as

the fact that no pre-Conquest Aztec codices are currently known, such imagery is

considered secondary to stone relief depictions of the deity. Like codex images,

Tlaltecuhtli representations in stone are always two-dimensional and, generally

speaking, are carved on the undersides of stone boxes, beneath cuauhxicalli, or as

panel faces. It is these two dimensional representations in stone that are the focus of

this work.

The second requirement of Tlaltecuhtli images is that they must be depicted in a

straight-on view. Klein addresses the meaning behind en face imagery by discussing

“…the relation of frontality to the themes of death, darkness, earth, and descent…”

(1976:15). En face images often appear to have been associated with such themes by

their positioning on objects. “Two-dimensional frontal images in Mesoamerica appear

in visual contexts that often locate their subject matter in cosmological space”

(Ibid.:176, 177). It is not, therefore, surprising that images of Tlaltecuhtli, the

terrestrial deity par excellence, would be positioned so often beneath objects,

connecting the deity to the earth it represented. Klein also remarks upon the way in

which en face imagery engages the viewer, noting the intense interaction that takes

place between the object and its beholder as a key factor in the artist’s conscious

choice to use such a pose (1976:19-20). The powerful reaction that results from such a

1
An inscribed femur from Colhuacan (Figure 1d) is an exception to this rule. See Graulich
(1988:398) for a description of this bone.
 50

pose is discussed as a result of its emphasis on the central axis of the human body:

“This impression of direct confrontation is reinforced by the fact that the heart, the

navel, and the sex organs appear on the vertical axis of a frontal figure; the viewer’s

attention is immediately drawn to these centrally-located body parts. Thus the frontal

figure, unlike the profile figure, automatically attracts the viewer’s attention to several

of the most vital organs of the body” (Ibid.:42). The frontal image, therefore, is an

image of strength, which emphasizes stability and a sense of “latent power” (Ibid.:249,

253). Several of these arguments also hold true for the dorsal images of Tlaltecuhtli,

which similarly emphasize the vertical axis and symmetry of the human body.

Tlaltecuhtli, always depicted in a straight-on view, then, is not only associated with

themes of darkness, earth, and death, but also with power, direct engagement, and

intense confrontation.

The final diagnostic feature of Tlaltecuhtli, and the one that deserves the most

attention, is the deity’s body position—arms stretched out and bent up at the elbows,

legs splayed out and knees bent. Though Tlaltecuhtli is by no means the only deity

shown in this hocker pose, it is a diagnostic feature of the deity. Consequently, when

other gods are presented in such a position, it is usually a means of linking them to

aspects of the earth, particularly powers of birth and creation. The five possible

interpretations of this pose are that it represents the world directions, parturition,

defeat, descent, or a saurian or amphibian identity. The first of these is never

mentioned in contemporary scholarship, perhaps because the conflation of the body of

the earth with the quadripartite universe seems self-evident. The second interpretation,
 51

birth, is by far the most popular reading of the position, though it is rarely supported

with iconographic data. Klein (1988) presents an interesting alternative to the birth

theory, though, suggesting that such a position may instead represent defeat, sacrifice,

and subjugation. As I will argue below, the two arguments are not necessarily

contradictory, as birth and death were considered analogous in the Aztec world. The

third option, rarely discussed by authors, is that the hocker position might depict

descent—recalling in particular the descent of tzitzimime demons during solar eclipses

or the role of the cihuateteo in bringing the sun from zenith to setting. Finally, textual

evidence describes Tlaltecuhtli as a giant toad, thereby focusing more on the history of

Tlaltecuhtli as an amphibious monster than the other, more conceptual associations of

the position.

3.1.1 The Hocker Position as All Directions

The hocker position appears to have had a directional meaning, representing the

displayed human body as symbol of the four world quarters. Nuttall, for instance,

discusses the human body, especially the sacrificial victim when stretched out over the

sacrificial stone, as a metaphor for the world directions (1901:174, 91-92), while

Carrasco calls the human body “a living, moving center of the world” (1990:21, 52-

54). León-Portilla speaks similarly of the Aztec conception of their earth: “…the

universe is divided into four great quadrants of space whose common point of

departure is the navel of the earth. From this point the four quadrants extend all the

way out to the meeting place, on the horizon, of the heavens and the surrounding

celestial water” (1963:57). Such metaphors are also seen in the Maya area, where
 52

sacrificial victims were tied to crosses, symbols of the quadripartite world (see

Thompson 1970:176-178). Interestingly, Tlaltecuhtli is never identified in the codices

with a specific direction (Klein 1976:56), so it is quite possible that the deity’s body

was considered all directions at once, the navel marking the world center. The hocker

position may therefore have reflected the earth’s quadripartite division, a simple

correlation between the body of Tlaltecuhtli and the quarters of the earth. That the

outspread body of the earth was symbolic of the four directions is also seen in

ballgame imagery, where the ballcourt and body of Tlaltecuhtli are at times conflated

(Figure 30).

3.1.2 The Hocker Position as Birth

The most popular explanation for the hocker position is that of birth, the

mamazouhticac position of native women (Klein 1973; Nicholson 1954; Gutiérrez

Solana 1983; Matos Moctezuma 1997). The primary evidence supporting the hocker

position as one of birth is that many deities found in this pose are seen with creation

imagery: new figures, deities or otherwise, emerging from them in representations of

birth. The most vivid image in support of the hocker position being a birth pose is

found in the Codex Borbonicus, where Tlazolteotl, dressed in a flayed skin, gives birth

to a miniature version of herself (Figure 11a). As can be seen, her body position

conforms perfectly to that of Tlaltecuhtli. A number of other images depicting the

hocker position as one of birth can also be found in the Borgia Codex. In one instance,

a human figure emerges in a gush of blood from the abdomen of a blindfolded goddess

(Figure 11b). In another, figures that appear to be Nanahuatzin sprout from the joints
 53

of a male deity (Figure 15). Interestingly, a number of these images depict birth as

emergence from the abdomen rather than the womb, perhaps an allusion to the idea

that the stomach, the center of the body – marked at birth as the terminus of the

umbilical cord—was considered as much the locale of creation and birth as the womb

and birth canal.

It is important to note, however, that there are also instances where explicit birth

scenes do not show the mother in the hocker position. First among these is the

greenstone image regarded as the earth goddess Tlazolteotl giving birth (Figure 11c).

In this graphic portrayal of parturition, a human head emerges from the vagina of the

goddess; Tlazolteotl’s clenched teeth and anguished expression further emphasize the

realism of the image. Most notable is the fact that, in such a realistic depiction of birth,

neither Tlazolteotl’s arms or legs are splayed in the hocker position. Quezada records

the squatting pose of this statuette as a conventional birth position, “The position for

birth was crouching down with the hands on the buttocks, with the fingers partially

opening the vulva” (1977:314). This is the exact position seen in the greenstone image

and therefore demonstrates that this body pose was a typical one of birth. In another

image, found on the exquisite “Birth Vase” from the Maya area, a woman gives birth

while holding onto a rope slung from the rafters (Figure 11d). This birth position is

known ethnographically and is discussed by Guiteras-Holmes (1961:107). Again,

though the arms here are similar to the “hocker” position, the legs are kept relatively

close together. Tlaltecuhtli, in contrast, is never shown with a rope in hand, and often

clutches skulls or human hearts instead. Though both the greenstone statuette and the
 54

Maya vase throw some doubt on the identification of the hocker position as a

straightforward depiction of birth, they by no means disprove it. The fact that two of

the most explicit representations of birth known from Mesoamerica are so different

from one another leads one to instead conclude that there may, in fact, have been a

variety of poses used by women in childbirth, the hocker among them.

In the case of true Tlaltecuhtli imagery—rather than imagery of other deities

taking on her body position—there is only one inarguable instance of such a position

representing creation. This relief panel shows Tezcatlipoca emerging from a

chalchihuitl sign on the abdomen of Tlaltecuhtli (Figure 2b). Though this portrayal of

the birth of Tezcatlipoca is more metaphorical than realistic, it nonetheless clearly

depicts emergence from the earth’s center. As for other Tlaltecuhtli images, none

show the physical result of birth. The reason for this may be quite simple: in most

Tlaltecuhtli 1 relief images, the female earth most likely to be involved in birth scenes,

the viewer is presented with Tlaltecuhtli’s back. That she is shown with her back to

the viewer is made clear by the presence of a skull ornament which is depicted not

only on both the “Coatlicue del Metro” and the colossal Coatlicue statues (Figures 8c-

d), but also throughout the codices as an ornament worn on the backs of female deities

(Figure 8e). This skull thus marks the greater part of Tlaltecuhtli 1 figures as facing

away from the viewer. As this is the case, it would be difficult indeed to show birth.

As such events are generally represented taking place through the navel, they would

occur on the face opposite that available to the viewer.

 55

3.1.3 The Hocker Position as Defeat

As previously mentioned, Klein (1988) has presented an interesting alternative to

the traditional birth theory. Rather than showing parturition, Klein argues, the hocker

position presents us with a defeated enemy. Likening the splayed pose of the earth

deity to the pelts of animals taken in the hunt, Klein theorizes that Tlaltecuhtli imagery

represents a defeated woman warrior, subjugated and humiliated by the male state.

Klein (1994), for instance, discusses Tlaltecuhtli as conceptually equivalent to

Cihuacoatl, the first defeated enemy of Huitzilopochtli. Because the Aztecs viewed

female warriors as potential enemies of the state, they were often depicted in contexts

of subjugation and defeat. It is important to mention, however, that arguments about

female subjugation only relate to images of Tlaltecuhtli 1, for Tlaltecuhtli 2 is fully

male. Though there is no space here to argue the details of gender politics within

Aztec society (see Klein 1988, 1993, 1994, 2000), the similarity of Tlaltecuhtli’s pose

to those of skins portrayed in such codices as the Magliabechiano cannot be

overlooked (Figure 12a). The strongest iconographic support for the argument that the

hocker position represents defeat is found in the Teocalli of Moctezuma (Figure 1b),

where the image of Tlaltecuhtli is shown, face-down, on the ruler’s seat. If this indeed

was used as a throne, the ruler would, literally, have been seated upon the back of the

earth. Though, with the sun symbol carved into the seat back, this might be read as

positioning the ruler between earth and sky, images of defeated enemies sat upon and

stood upon by rulers throughout Mesoamerica link such a position to that of military

defeat as well (see also Carrera 1979:190; Townsend 1979:55; Umberger 1981:190).
 56

One should also consider the description of the earth’s creation from the Histoire du

Mechique, which situates Tlaltecuhtli as a sacrificial victim, set upon and torn in two

by Tezcatlipoca and Quetzalcoatl (Garibay 1973).

All Tlaltecuhtli 2 images face the earth and might thereby serve as support for

the defeat theory. In the case of Tlaltecuhtli 1 imagery, however—the female variant

of the earth that would have best embodied concepts of the defeated enemy of the

Aztec state—the Teocalli of Moctezuma (Figure 1b), the base of the Bilimek vessel

(Figure 2a), and possibly the base of the Stuttgart statuette (Figure 5d) are the only

representations of Tlaltecuhtli 1 known to show the goddess facing the ground.

Though Tlaltecuhtli 1 often appears with her back toward the viewer when looked at

out of context, when in situ—whether on the base of cuauhxicalli, figures, or offertory

boxes—her back would have faced the ground. As a result, objects generally would

not have been placed on the back of the earth goddess as a sign of her defeat, but

instead would be conceptually placed on her abdomen, previously discussed as

equivalent to the site of birth. In Mesoamerican art, animal pelts are never shown face-

up, and though some defeated warriors are depicted lying supine, these are never

shown in the hocker position. This theory, as applied to Tlaltecuhtli imagery in

general, also does not address the various creation and birth scenes so often associated

with the hocker position in the codices. If such a pose were indicative of death and

defeat, it seems the codices would not show it in so many contexts of creation.

Though Klein’s theory may not be applicable to all Tlaltecuhtli imagery, it is

important to recognize that birth and death were considered very closely related in the
 57

minds of the Aztecs. As Seler notes, “The woman who gives birth is the warrior who

takes a prisoner; the woman who dies in birth is the warrior who, fallen into the hands

of his enemies, is sacrificed on the sacrificial stone” (1963[II]:181). This connection to

war is seen not only on the seat of the Teocalli, where Tlaltecuhtli is shown bordered

by two war shields (Figure 1b), but also in the Tlaltecuhtli image found on the sides of

the “Stone of the Four Creations,” where the goddess is flanked on either side by atl

tlachinolli signs (Figure 1e). The creation of the earth from the torn body of

Tlaltecuhtli was an act of war undertaken by Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca, and the

Aztecs held all creation and birth to be the results of warfare and destruction. A

position of parturition and a position of defeat and sacrifice are therefore by no means

mutually exclusive.

3.1.4 The Hocker Position as Descent

A third interpretation of the hocker position is that it may depict descent. Rarely

discussed by authors and dismissed as a possibility by Gutiérrez Solana (1983:24), it is

nevertheless an intriguing theory in these contexts of birth and destruction and is

clearly suggested iconographically in several instances. The first is a stone relief

depiction of the body of Tlaltecuhtli—complete with mouths at her joints, clawed

hands and feet, and the hocker body position—which bears the face and butterfly

wings of Itzpapalotl (Figure 13a). Itzpapalotl, the “Obsidian Butterfly,” is widely

accepted to have been a tzitzimitl, a star demon who would descend at solar eclipses to

wreak havoc on earth. As a result, this relief is frequently shown in illustrations with

the head facing downwards (Klein 1976:59; Gutiérrez Solana 1983:f.177; Seler
 58

1963[II]:f.267). Nothing, however, distinguishes the position of Itzpapalotl, here

widely presumed to be descending headfirst to earth, from the position of Tlaltecuhtli,

which is rarely, if ever, described as one of descent. The second example is that of a

gold ornament referred to as the head of Coyolxauhqui by Solís (2004:162, f.71)

(Figure 13b). If one looks closely, however, one can discern a body and limbs—in

much smaller scale than the head—that show this goddess is in the hocker position. As

the ornament most likely would be worn with the face upright, it is clear that the use

of the hocker position to show descent is not limited to images of Itzpapalotl. A

sculpture of a Huastec goddess wearing a headdress of a monster descending in the

hocker position (Figure 13c), not to mention the various descending gods from the site

of Tulum in Yucatan, further indicate that such a pose was often associated with the

descent of deities.

If, at the time of the earth’s creation, one half of Tlaltecuhtli’s body was thrown

upwards to form the sky, it is conceivable that the deity would at times be shown

descending like a tzitzimitl, bent on avenging its own mistreatment by destroyimg

mankind. As Klein states in a discussion of the cihuateteo and tzitzimime, “All of the

beings affiliated with the dark or terrestrial half of the cosmos were associated with

the act of descent” (1976:33-34). This, of course, would include Tlaltecuhtli, the

terrestrial deity par excellence. Descent, however, is not necessarily unequivocally

associated with death and destruction. Klein, for instance, states that newborn babies

were considered to have descended from the thirteenth heaven, an event possibly

recorded in the Borbonicus 13 image where Tlazolteotl’s child is seen descending to

 59

her from above (Klein 1976:35; see also León-Portilla 1963:118) (Figure 11a).

Similarly, Seler calls Tamoanchan the “‘Place of descent,’ i.e. ‘Place of birth’…”

(1990-[V]:17). Descent was therefore associated with both the descent of the

tzitzimime at the end of the world as well as the descent of children before birth. In

other words, descent deals with both the completion and the renewal of cycles of time

(Klein 1976:201-202).2

3.1.5 The Hocker Position as Amphibian

The primary textual evidence from early sources that links the body pose and

appearance of Tlaltecuhtli to saurian, reptilian, or amphibian forms comes from

Mendieta, who describes the deity as a giant toad with snapping mouths at every joint:

“…the earth they took to be a goddess and they depicted her as a wild frog with

mouths on all her joints filled with blood, saying that she ate and swallowed

everything” (1945:87; see also Nicholson 1967:83; Klein 2000:11). Nicholson

similarly describes Tlaltecuhtli as a “…toad-like creature studded with macabre

symbols” (1972:225). According to Furst, a conception of the earth as “…a monstrous

toad with feline characteristics…” is quite widespread, possibly originating in South

America (1972:37). The story of the South American Toad Grandmother, for instance,

is remarkably similar to the creation myth of Tlaltecuhtli recounted in the Histoire du

Mechique, and culminates in Toad Grandmother’s sacrifice and dismemberment at the

2
The only way to see whether Tlaltecuhtli images were once placed in a descending position
is to find relief panels in situ. Unfortunately, there are very few Tlaltecuhtli images that have
come from controlled excavations. In Baquedano and Orton’s (1990) study, for instance, only
four of the 37 sculptures discussed were discovered in their original context.
 60

hands of the hero twins. This closely parallels Tlaltecuhtli’s dismemberment by

Tezcatlipoca and Quetzalcoatl. As happened in the case of Tlaltecuhtli, all plants

sprout from Toad Grandmother’s dismembered body (Ibid.:38).

Three-dimensional sculptures of toads, when looked at from below, do have

some iconographic similarity to deities shown in the hocker position (Nicholson

1967:83) (Figure 14). Nicholson (Ibid.) specifically cites the chalchihuitl sign, framed

by four jade beads, that is found on the abdomens of several toads as a symbol of the

center, or heart of the earth. This sign is identical to the chalchihuitl signs found on the

abdomens of at least three Tlaltecuhtli relief sculptures. Here, too, the symbol would

refer to the center or womb of the earth. Toads and frogs, conceived of as symbols of

fertility and agricultural abundance throughout Mesoamerica, certainly carry similar

associations as Tlaltecuhtli. Nevertheless, in the relief images of Tlaltecuhtli and in

images of other deities in the splayed hocker position, there is very little that can be

considered toad-like (see Gutiérrez Solana 1983:21, Bonifaz Nuño 1986:64). Even the

chalchihuitl sign is found on many figures besides toads and does little to confirm a

toad reading. In sum, there is very little that directly links Tlaltecuhtli with reptilian,

amphibian, or saurian forms. Images of cipactli in the hocker position—seen not only

in the Aztec world but in Olmec and Maya art as well (Figures 13d-e, 31c-d)— do

illustrate that the surface of the earth was conceived of as the back of a great crocodile,

a concept reinforced by the description of Cipactli in the Historia de los Mexicanos

por sus pinturas as “…a large fish… which is like a caiman…” (Garibay 1973:25).

However, it appears clear that such a figure was considered distinct from Tlaltecuhtli.
 61

Detailed research about the figure of Cipactli—in many ways the counterpart of

Tlaltecuhtli—is needed, but such a study is, unfortunately, beyond the scope of this

work.

More likely than the truth of a single theory, however, is that the hocker position

is a blend of several interpretations. The splayed body of the earth may symbolize the

four world quarters while at the same time uniting themes of birth, defeat, descent, and

reptilian or amphibian connections, for no single theory precludes the others.

Arguments that the position represents death and defeat in battle complement, rather

than refute, the arguments that claim it is a position of parturition, for women in

childbirth were considered warriors going into battle. Birth and sacrifice thus represent

two halves of the same life cycle. Though the hypothesis of descent is by far the most

often dismissed or ignored by authors, there is clear iconographic evidence to support

it, and it should be understood that descent, too, carries with it associations of both life

and death, beginnings and endings. Neither does the association with saurian or

amphibian creatures, connected so closely to agricultural growth and renewal,

somehow contradict or oppose these other theories. Therefore, it may be best to think

of the hocker position as having multiple meanings, each of which supports the theory

that Aztec conceptions of the earth revolved around duality, the mutual dependence of

death and life.

3.2 Summary and Conclusions:

In this study, in order to be considered a representation of Tlaltecuhtli, an image

must be a two-dimensional form found in codices or stone relief sculpture. It must also
 62

be depicted in a straight-on view, never profile, and must exhibit the splayed body

pose known as the hocker position. These three features are considered the diagnostic

characteristics shared by all Tlaltecuhtli imagery. No image lacking one or more of

these features can be described as Tlaltecuhtli, though it must be mentioned that some

images displaying all three may not be Tlaltecuhtli either. Despite the fact that such a

definition may appear broad, it does resolve some issues vis à vis Tlaltecuhtli variants.

The statue referred to as the “Coatlicue del Metro” (Figure 8c) for instance, cannot be

Tlaltecuhtli, despite the fact that it is often described as such (Matos Moctezuma

2002:f.132; Heyden 1971). Not only does its three-dimensional character not conform

to the parameters of Tlaltecuhtli imagery, but its crossed-leg seated position is further

indication that it represents a different deity, albeit with strong earth attributes.

Once this initial division has been made between representations of Tlaltecuhtli

and representations similar to Tlaltecuhtli, a secondary distinction is required.

Tlaltecuhtli images fit into one of two categories. The first of these, Tlaltecuhtli 1, is

characterized either by an open maw (Tlaltecuhtli 1a) (Figures 1-3) or an upside-down

female head (Tlaltecuhtli 1b) (Figures 4-5). All images in the Tlaltecuhtli 1 category

share toothy faces at the elbow and knee joints and clawed hands and feet clutching

skulls or hearts. Tlaltecuhtli 1a images are shown in either a frontal (marked by a

chalchihuitl sign) or dorsal (marked by a skull and back apron) view, while

Tlaltecuhtli 1b is only shown in a dorsal view. An interesting variant of Tlaltecuhtli

1a, the “knife variant” (Figure 3), is also discussed in the next chapter. Tlaltecuhtli 2

images, on the other hand, all display an upright human head wearing a fanged
 63

mouthpiece, a curving element that arches over the brow-line, and a headdress marked

by three dots (Figures 6-7). This figure bears a large central circle marked with a

quincunx and wears boots with upturned toes. Skulls are lashed onto the figure’s arms

and legs and skulls are clasped in the hands. Though not completely clawed, the hands

display taloned thumbs. (See Appendix 1)

The smaller iconographic details that vary among these categories will be

discussed in the next two chapters, which address each of the two Tlaltecuhtli variants.

This analysis, however, hopefully provides the reader with a clear, concise definition

of what kinds of images are addressed by the name “Tlaltecuhtli.” With such a

groundwork laid, one can now more confidently address the specifics of Tlaltecuhtli

iconography and symbolism.

 Chapter 4: Tlaltecuhtli 1

The category “Tlaltecuhtli 1” includes representations of the female earth. All

Tlaltecuhtli 1 images share toothy faces at the elbow and knee joints, a skull and

crossbones skirt, malinalli grass hair, clawed hands and feet, and striated bracelets and

anklets, the anklets edged with bells. The category is further broken down into

Tlaltecuhtli 1a (Figures 1-3) and 1b (Figures 4-5), the first marked by a wide-open

jaw, the second by an upside-down female head with a knife clenched in her teeth.

Though these may appear quite different at first glance, overall similarity in the bodies

of both types leads to the conclusion that they represent head variants of the same

form. That said, some iconographic variation does occur. First, in the case of

Tlaltecuhtli 1a, there are frontal and dorsal views. Several other details also

differentiate certain groups from others, including skulls clutched in the hands and feet

that are only found with the 1b variant and skulls lashed onto the arms and legs that

are found on 1a “knife variants” as well as several 1b variants. Paper banners and

items that may be coyote tails are shown on all dorsal images of Tlaltecuhtli 1a and

1b, though the 1a “knife variant” lacks the second of these features (Figure 3). Though

they are not different enough to designate separate categories altogether, such

variations hold the key to the different ways in which the Aztecs represented their

earth. What might be considered minor inconsistencies in design in fact form an

iconographic language linking different subgroups of Tlaltecuhtli 1 imagery to themes

of death and consumption, birth and production, war and sacrifice.

64
 65

4.1 Shared Characteristics of Tlaltecuhtli 1

4.1.1 Masked Joints:

One of the most frequently cited characteristics of Tlaltecuhtli 1 is that toothy

faces mark the elbow and knee joints. As Seler states, “Its most outstanding and

special peculiarity consists of joints of arms and legs that are marked by open,

yawning jaws surrounded by teeth without flesh” (1990-[V]:5). This feature is often

listed as a diagnostic element of the earth and, when displayed by other gods, is

viewed as a sign that these gods are associated with the earth (Heyden 1971:162;

Aguilera 2001:40). The Histoire du Mechique mentions these masks, “…the goddess

Tlaltecuhtli, whose joints were filled with eyes and mouths, with which she bit like a

savage beast” (Garibay1973:108). As one of the very few iconographic descriptions of

Tlaltecuhtli found in sixteenth-century sources, this passage emphasizes the

importance of the masks as a diagnostic feature of Tlaltecuhtli 1.

Alcina Franch links these masks to themes of the earth and underworld: “…they

are merely qualifying adjectives that show the Underworld or terrestrial character of

the figures on which they appear” (1995:35). Matos Moctezuma (1997:33) and López

Austín (1988:166), on the other hand, suggest a connection to Sahagún’s descriptions

of ash being rubbed onto the joints of a new mother and child to protect them from

harm. Arnold explains that a newly delivered mother was considered particularly

susceptible to injury through her joints: “Part of a person’s vital forces resided in the

bones, various spiritual entities penetrated the body through the joints, which were

considered weak spots and thus a potential site for the entrance of disease, as well as
 66

benign cosmological emanations” (1999:55; see also López Austín 1988:215). If this

is the case, then these masks may mark Tlaltecuhtli 1 as a newly delivered mother, at

risk of pollution by dangerous forces that could attack through her weakened joints.

That joints themselves were associated with birth and emergence is seen in Borgia 42,

where figures emerge from the knees and elbows of a skeletal god (Figure 15).

With their goggled eyes and down-curving fanglike teeth, the faces on the joints

of Tlaltecuhtli are intriguingly close to images of ñuju figures from the internal pages

of the Borgia codex (Figure 16). Though the full meaning of these figures is unknown,

they are connected to themes of agricultural growth and fertility. Interestingly, on

Borgia 30, 33, and 34, these nature spirits are also shown with clawed hands and feet,

a feature characteristic of earth deities in general and Tlaltecuhtli in particular (Figure

16a). In the Borgia, these ñuju faces also mark materials of stone and wood, possibly

indicating that the body of Tlaltecuhtli, bearing identical faces on its joints, may be

marked as a natural substance (Figures 16b-c). The faces of ñujus are indistinguishable

from that of Tlaloc (Aguilera 2001:40; Bonifaz Nuño 1986:65) and may have been

intended to be such, general markers of natural substances that connect their wearers

to themes of agriculture and natural abundance.

Though the masks at Tlaltecuhtli’s joints are frequently seen in terrestrial

contexts, they often appear to be linked to astral or celestial figures as well. As shown

in the images from the Codex Tudela 46r (Figure 17a) and the Codex Magliabechiano

76r (Figure 17b), such masks may have been a feature of the tzitzimime demons.

Aguilera (2001:40), for instance, says that Coyolxauhqui (Figure 10) wears these
 67

masks on her joints because she is a cihuateteo and tzitzimitl. Although this seems to

contradict an earlier statement that such masks are a diagnostic feature of the earth,

Aguilera reconciles the two arguments by recounting the creation myth of Tlaltecuhtli

in which one half of the deity’s dismembered body became the earth and the other the

sky. Symbols associated with Tlaltecuhtli may therefore be both terrestrial and

celestial signs (Aguilera 2001:40). Another detail that weakens the argument that these

masks are straightforward signs of the earth is that images of cipactli, the crocodilian

earth, do not show such faces (Figures 31c-d). If such masks were an Aztec terrestrial

symbol, then images of crocodiles in the hocker position found beneath objects

presumably would display them as well.

Accounts found in Durán (1994) and Acosta (2002) associate these masks with

death and funeral rites. Acosta, for instance, describes a funeral ceremony as follows:

“Then a priest came out dressed in the accoutrements of the devil, with mouths painted

on all the joints and many eyes made of mirrors” (2002:269). What kind of priest this

was and what his offices were are not discussed. An account found in Durán is even

more vivid: “[Then] came the King and Lord of the Underworld, dressed like a

diabolical creature. In place of eyes he wore shining mirrors; his mouth was huge and

fierce; his hair was curled; he had two hideous horns; and on each shoulder he wore a

mask with mirror eyes. On each elbow there was one of these faces, on his abdomen

another, and on his knees still other faces with eyes. With the shining of the mirrors

that represented eyes on all these parts, it looked as if he could see in every direction”

(1994:308). These masks may, then, have something to do with the omnipresence of
 68

Tlaltecuhtli, the fact that her splayed body marked all quarters and the center of the

world and, as such, both saw and embodied all directions.

4.1.2 Skull and Crossbones Skirt

Tlaltecuhtli’s skirt is decorated with a skull and crossbones motif. Such a design

can obviously be linked to death, but it also appears to have been associated with

curing and healing, specifically through connections to the cihuateteo and tzitzimime.

Klein, for example, argues that “…at least some of the Cihuateteo were associated

with a skirt decorated with either a skull or crossed bones” (2000:10). Klein later

mentions that such a skirt was also “…diagnostic of the tzitzimime” (Ibid.:19).1

According to Klein (Ibid.), these skirts mark their wearers— predominantly earth

goddesses, cihuateteo, and tzitzizmime—as curers and healers. As a result, these

designs were also used to decorate the low-lying platforms where people would call

upon these deities to heal them (Ibid.:11) (Figures 18a-b). “It was because these

magical garments with their distinctive decorations embodied the powers of these

supernaturals that they were materialized in the form of ritual furniture and used to

petition for protection from danger and illness” (Ibid.:5). These skirts and platforms

are visually equated in three Tlaltecuhtli images (all frontal views of the 1a variant),

where skirts are shown as angular, architectural features (Figures 2b-d). These skirts
1
These two groups of deities are difficult to differentiate. The main difference is that the
tzitzimime (singular form “tzitzimitl”) were envisioned as astral deities that threatened both the
sun and mankind during eclipses. Klein (2000) does, however, discuss how the tzitzizmime
were demonized (and masculinized) after the Spanish Conquest, stripped of their ties to
healing and curing to make them closer to the Christian concept of the devil (See Taube 1993
for discussion of the tzitzimime demons). The cihuateteo (singular form “cihuateotl”), on the
other hand, whose identities often merge with the tzitzimime, were the souls of women who
died in childbirth and brought the sun from its zenith to its setting.
 69

are also bordered by the starry sky bands found on both monolithic stone sculptures

and along the borders of skull and crossbones platforms (Figure 18c). These skirts thus

connect Tlaltecuhtli 1 images, especially Tlaltecuhtli 1a frontal views, to healing and

curing as well as to the tzitzimime and cihuateteo.

4.1.3 “Malinalli” Grass Hair

The head of Tlaltecuhtli 1, whether as reptilian maw or decapitated female face,

is always crowned by a ruff of tangled hair. This hair, especially in depictions that

include the spatulate leaves on their thin stalks, is clearly malinalli grass (Peterson

1983:117) and implies that the head of the earth deity, like the earth itself, is covered

with a layer of rustling grass. This grass may even have been envisioned as an

embodiment of the earth itself. As Peterson states, “The versatile and hardy malinalli

grass, able to survive in both arid climates and at higher altitudes, predictable in its

perennial return, and fertile in appearance with its heavily seeded flower stalk, early

may have come to represent an outward manifestation of the sacred earth…”

(Ibid.:123). Malinalli grass was highly valued by the Aztecs, as it was used to make

ropes, mats, and for weaving and tying sacks. The flower stems and leaves of the plant

were also used for roofing materials (Ibid.:116), a fact that may have led to the

conflation between the roofs of buildings and the hair of the earth. Like Tlaltecuhtli’s

skull and crossbones skirt, malinalli grass associates the deity with healing, for the

malinalli plant had medicinal uses (Peterson 1983:126 f.n.17; Klein 2000:14).

Quezada (1977:313) also notes its use to prevent abortion, a use consistent with the

general themes of fertility and birth associated with Tlaltecuhtli.

 70

The malinalli grass hair shown on Tlaltecuhtli also appears to connect the deity

to auto-sacrifice, perhaps even death, as well. The hard stems of the plants, for

instance, were used as straws for bloodletting (Peterson 1983:120), while figures of

dead lords were crowned during the festival of Tititl, shown on Magliabechiano 60,

with malinalli grass headdresses (Peterson 1983:118). Nicholson further describes

these darker connections of Tlaltecuhtli’s malinalli grass hair: “This peculiar hair style

is a diagnostic of the deities related to death and the underworld and suggests the

confused murkiness of night and the darkness of death, when the ever-waiting

yawning jaws of ‘the father and mother of us all’ receive their prey” (1954:166).

Malinalli grass thus further demonstrates the overall duality embodied by the Aztec

earth, uniting the symbolism of life and death, healing and self-sacrifice.

Dorsal Tlaltecuhtli 1a and 1b images also occasionally display insects, including

spiders, centipedes, and worms, in their malinalli hair (Figures 1a-b, 4c-d). These

creatures carry associations of black magic and death. Durán, for instance, describes

Malinalxochitl as using these insects to kill her enemies, “With magic spells, she slays

those who anger her by sending snakes and scorpions, centipedes, or deadly spiders to

bite them” (1994:24). Moctezuma used a similar technique in efforts to assassinate

Cortes (Ibid:513). Klein discusses the presence of these various insects in the hair of

female goddesses as tools of witchcraft and sorcery, used to bewitch and seduce

unsuspecting men (Klein 2000:14 n.35, 1994:225). These creatures, however, were

also associated with rites of healing. Durán, for example, talks of the ritual soot that

Aztec priests and rulers smeared on their faces, which was derived from soot,
 71

“scorpions, spiders, centipedes, other unpleasant little creatures, tobacco, and the seed

of ololiuhqui… This mixture was supposed to protect the persons upon whom it was

smeared from all dangers”(1994:189 f.n.2). These creatures, then, represent the

delicate balance between death and protection. As Klein states, the earth’s

“…malinalli hair and its contents, therefore, would have connoted not just the dangers

threatening pregnant women but also the goddess’s potential to assist them”

(2000:14).2

In a more obvious sense, these creatures represent those things that inhabit the

earth, living in soil and dark places. As Taube (pers. comm. 2004) notes, in order to

see images of Tlaltecuhtli—so often carved beneath objects—one would have had to

lift the object off the ground, an act similar to the lifting of a stone from the earth,

which leaves moist dirt and wriggling insects behind. The centipede, for its part, is

considered a liminal creature, associated with the darkness of the underworld and earth

entrances, while the spider is associated with both earth and sky, terrestrial and lunar

deities. On the one hand, the spider is connected with weaving and creative,

productive enterprises, and on the other with the tzitzimime demons, who were

believed to descend to earth during solar eclipses to wreak havoc upon mankind. Both

the centipede and scorpion were similarly associated with the tzitzimime demons as

well as the cihuateteo (Klein 1976:131-134).

2
It is interesting to note that such creatures are missing from frontal Tlaltecuhtli 1a images,
whose architectural skirts connect them to medicine, curing, and the platforms used for
healing rituals.
 72

4.1.4 Claws and Bracelets

Two other features characteristic of Tlaltecuhtli 1 are her clawed hands and feet

and the striated bracelets and anklets that she wears. Both features unfortunately have

meanings that are difficult to understand. On the one hand, the claws of Tlaltecuhtli

might be jaguar claws, which would associate Tlaltecuhtli 1 with terrestrial themes, as

well as darkness and night. On the other hand, a number of authors argue that they are

eagle claws, citing either that there is one rear talon (Boone 1999:190) or that there are

four total talons (Townsend 1979:67) as evidence of the fact. Seler’s statement that the

tzitzimime descend to earth in the form of eagles (1963 [II]:20) may also support an

avian identity for these claws. As opposed to the terrestrial jaguar, the eagle is a solar

body and embodies astral or celestial themes.

Around her wrists and ankles Tlaltecuhtli wears what Nicholson identifies in one

article as “striated skin cuffs” (1967:82) and, in another, as leather bracelets worn

most often by deities associated with the west (1954:166). The anklets are often edged

with small bells. If these wristlets and anklets are indeed made of skin, they may link

Tlaltecuhtli 1a to the ritual flaying of sacrificial victims in rites of agricultural

renewal, connected to the god Xipe Totec as well as the mother goddess Toci. In these

rites, the donning of the flayed skin by the presiding priest was considered analogous

to the dressing of the fields with the green of new agricultural growth. While the

associations of such an adornment as skin bracelets are consistent with previously

discussed associations of the goddess with themes of agriculture, more iconographic

evidence is needed to support such a definite identification. Aguilera, for instance,

 73

points out that the bracelets worn by Coyolxauhqui (Figure 10)—bracelets identical to

those seen on the wrists of Tlaltecuhtli 1a—were important accessories of battle,

protecting warriors against sprains by reinforcing the wrists and, on the left side,

helping to secure a shield (2001:33). This alternate reading, of course, would

emphasize themes of warfare over those of agriculture, even though, as we have seen,

such themes were inextricably connected. The iconographic similarity between some

of the anklets worn by Tlaltecuhtli 1 and depictions of coyote fur anklets from images

of warriors, may further support this connection to war. With so many intriguing and

contradictory connections to both terrestrial and solar themes, warfare and sacrifice,

the clawed hands and feet and skin cuffs of Tlaltecuhtli merit further study.

4.2 Features of Tlaltecuhtli 1a

4.2.1 Metaphors of Consumption

The Tlaltecuhtli 1a subgroup, shown in both frontal and dorsal views, is most

easily recognized by her wide, reptilian maw, filled with sharp teeth and curving

fangs. I believe this variant represents the truest form of Tlaltecuhtli, the most

straightforward depiction of the Aztec earth. Even though full-bodied images of

Tlaltecuhtli are never seen outside of the Aztec codices, both the Mixtec codices and

the Borgia group are replete with images of this wide-open maw as symbol of the

earth, indicating that this head variant should be understood as a widespread Mexican

conception of the earth. Some authors connect this head to images of cipactli, the earth

crocodile, arguing that Tlaltecuhtli 1a is composed of two profile cipactli heads. As

Klein states, “Tlaltecuhtli thus typically shares with Cipactli a missing lower jaw,
 74

sharp pointed teeth, a curled nose and curled eyebrow, and a flint knife projecting

from the nose” (Klein 1977:187). Klein also links it to the head of the colossal

“Coatlicue,” arguing for the possibility that Tlaltecuhtli’s head is composed of two

bloodstreams (1988:243).

Throughout the Borgia group and Mixtec codices, the jaws of the earth are

shown gulping down mummy bundles (Figures 19a-d). In many examples, too,

sacrificed victims are portrayed tumbling head first into the earth’s gaping jaws

(Figures 19e-f). In relief sculpture, then, the open maw of Tlaltecuhtli 1a designates

her as the all-consuming earth, into whose waiting jaws we all eventually return in

death. The Aztec earth was seen as both the beginning and the end of the cycle of life,

womb and tomb (Nicholson 1971:422), for though she produces all living things, she

is also the great consumer of the dead. The Tzotzil, for instance, believe that the earth

“…brings forth and fosters all creatures, but is simultaneously their common grave.

She relentlessly swallows back, as a monster, the beings that she produces... She is all-

producing, all maintaining, all-devouring” (Guiteras-Holmes 1961:189). The open

jaws of Tlaltecuhtli 1a thereby relate this variant to metaphors of death and

consumption. As Nicholson states, “This grotesque creature, Tlaltecuhtli, was possibly

believed to swallow the sun in the evening, disgorging it each dawn, also devouring

the blood and hearts of sacrificed victims and the souls of the dead in general”

(1971:406).

Throughout Mesoamerica, death is associated with metaphors of consumption.

For the Tzotzil of Chenalho, for example, death is attributed to the nagual, or animal
 75

soul, being eaten (Guiteras Holmes 1961:139-40), while in Yucatec Mayan the word

for sacrifice translates as “to open the mouth,” possibly a reference to blood smeared

on the mouths of deity figures (Thompson 1970:175). The belief that one was

conceived to be consumed by the earth at death is further demonstrated in Durán’s

description of the emperor Axayacatl’s funeral in which a guest states, “There you lie,

there you rest in the shade of the dark fields, of the nine mouths of death,…”

(1994:292). The reciprocal relationship of consumption between the earth and

mankind may be reinforced through the ceremonial eating of earth, tlalqualiztli, often

seen in contexts of prisoner sacrifice, when those to be sacrificed thrust their finger

into the earth and ate the dirt that stuck to it (Durán 1994:327, 288). This may be a

reference to the mutual responsibilities of humans, who eat the products of the earth,

and the earth, who eats the bodies of the dead. “We eat of the earth/ then the earth eats

us” (Knab 1983, quoted in Broda 1987:107).

As discussed, the earth, often paired with the sun, was considered an important

consumer of sacrificial offerings. As Sahagún records in a prayer to Tezcatlipoca:

“The earth god opens his mouth, thirsty to drink the blood of the many who will die in

this war. It seems that the sun and the earth god called Tlaltecuhtli want to celebrate.

They will give food and drink to the gods of heaven and of hell, inviting them to

partake of the flesh and blood of the men who will die in this war. The gods of heaven

and of hell await to see who will win… whose blood will be drunk and whose flesh

will be eaten” (cited by Matos Moctezuma 1995:29). In the Histoire du Mechique, this

view of the earth as demanding human sacrifice is also made clear: “It was added that
 76

this goddess at times cried out at night and demanded hearts of humans, and that she

would not bring forth fruit until she was soaked in blood” (Seler 1990-[V]:5; see also

Garibay 1973). That so many of the currently known examples of Tlaltecuhtli relief

carvings are found on the bottoms of cuauhxicalli sacrificial vessels, known to have

been receptacles for human hearts, also speaks for the role of this deity as the great

devourer of human blood offerings.

Along with metaphors of consumption, the toothy maw of Tlaltecuhtli may also

represent the jagged entrances of caves. Throughout Mesoamerica, caves were seen as

entrances into the earth. Consequently, they are often shown as great, open, toothy

mouths, similar to that of the Aztec Tlaltecuhtli (Figure 20a). Throughout

Mesoamerica, caves were used as receptacles for the dead. Sahagún, for instance,

states that the skins of flayed victims were often placed in caves (1950-82[II]:5), while

Heyden argues, “The pictorial codices showing mummy bundles placed in the mouth

of the earth often represent cave burials” (1976:22). Caves, then, quite literally

consumed the deceased. The north wall of the newly discovered Preclassic mural at

San Bartolo in the Maya area exquisitely portrays the Mesoamerican conflation of

caves and open monster jaws. Though the mural painter initially outlined a more

traditional inward-curving monster fang in the upper jaw, he later replaced it with an

extraordinary depiction of a stalactite. Caves, so often full of jagged stalactites and

stalagmites, clearly resemble the open jaws of Tlaltecuhtli 1a.

Caves are also seen as great earth wombs. Girard, for instance, describes “…the

cave, which symbolizes the center or navel of the world, which is, at the same time,
 77

the vagina of the earth goddess” (1966:75). This blending of caves and wombs is best

illustrated in the famous depiction of the migration from Chicomoztoc from the

Historia Tolteca Chichimeca, which portrays the seven-lobed cave of origin as a

fleshy, multi-chambered womb (Figure 20b). That mouths and wombs were

sometimes visually conflated is demonstrated in the Vaticanus B 41, which shows a

death goddess with an umbilical cord emerging from her mouth (Figure 20c). As is

shown by the Huichol creation myth which deals with the great contests of creation

between Sun Father and Grandmother Growth, toothy wombs are also known

ethnographically. In this tale, Grandmother Earth creates the first females, but Sun

Father places teeth in their vaginas to prevent them from procreating. Therefore, it is

conceivable that the Aztecs, too, conceived of the opening of the earth as not only a

toothy maw but a toothy vagina as well (see Matos Moctezuma 1997).

Generally speaking, however, mouths are more associated with death and

consumption than birth and emergence. In art, then, figures most often fall into mouths

in death and emerge from wombs in birth. There are two important exceptions to this

broad rule: an image from the Nuttall Codex in which a woman enters the earth womb

headfirst (Figure 20d) and the well-known scene from Durán’s Historia de las Indias

de Nueva España in which the first humans are shown emerging from the great

monster mouth of Chicomoztoc (Figure 20a). Milbrath discusses the death

associations of the earth mouth, arguing that entering the underworld “…through the

jaws of the Earth Monster, was a more dangerous path usually signaling the death of

mortals. Only the astronomical gods, including the sun and Venus, seem to be able to
 78

enter the jaws of the earth and be reborn in the womb” (1988:159). Generally

speaking, then, a great, open mouth can usually be equated with the jaws of death, or

entry into the earth, while vaginas or wombs are associated with birth. Consequently,

while the open mouth of Tlaltecuhtli may associate her both with death and birth, it

should be mentioned that the former is by far the principal association, marking

Tlaltecuhtli 1a first and foremost as a consumer of the dead.

4.2.2 Tlalchitonatiuh

Tlalchitonatiuh, known as the “Sun near the earth” (Thompson 1943:119), is a

composite deity found only in the codices that joins Tlaltecuhtli 1a with Tlaloc and

Tonatiuh. In this deity, one sees a dark Tonatiuh with a Tlaloc mask, sometimes

depicted as a mummy bundle, sinking into the open jaws of Tlaltecuhtli 1a.

Tlalchitonatiuh, at times, is described as portraying the sun’s emergence from the jaws

of the earth (Thompson 1943:120), but the imagery of Tlalchitonatiuh, particularly

representations in which he is shown as a mummy bundle (Figures 33b-c), leans more

towards solar descent and death than birth. As Seler describes in the case of the

Borbonicus image, “[O]n the left side the sun sinking into the jaws of the earth is

pictured as a bundled corpse, a sun corpse, while on the right, opposite, one sees

Xolotl, the god-like dog, who transports the dead sun across the ocean of the west and

leads her down to the dead” (1990-[V]:5). Furthermore, Durán mentions that Tizoc

was known as Tlalchitonatiuh or “setting sun” (1994:296). Though it is easy to

understand why Tonatiuh would be shown sinking into the jaws of the earth at his

setting, it is unclear why he wears the mask of Tlaloc. It could, for instance, signify
 79

diminished light (Pasztory 1974:15) or the watery nature of the Underworld. The

goggles could also refer to warrior regalia, a symbol of the sun’s impending battle to

be reborn at dawn, though the mouthpiece seems to indicate a straightforward Tlaloc

identification. Though further study is needed to understand this composite deity (see

Thompson 1943; Taube 1998; Krickeberg 1961; Alcina Franch 1995), it clearly

emphasizes connections of Tlaltecuhtli 1a to solar death and consumption.

4.2.3 Skulls and Dorsal Views

Tlaltecuhtli 1a is most often shown with her back to the viewer, a perspective

indicated by the skull ornament that she wears. In this view, the skull and crossbones

skirt is deemphasized, wrapped tightly underneath the buttocks and around the thighs

of the goddess, the hem shown at an angle over each leg. The skull back ornament,

which along with the skull and crossbones skirt identifies Tlaltecuhtli 1a as female,

distinguishes this dorsal view from frontal Tlaltecuhtli 1a depictions. As shown in the

“Coatlicue del Metro,” the colossal “Coatlicue,” and codex depictions, this skull is

invariably worn on the back of female deities (Figure 8) and therefore, in Tlaltecuhtli

imagery, must indicate that the viewer is seeing Tlaltecuhtli from behind. In the

codices, this skull is ornamented by a flap of jaguar skin, from which hang braided

rope or cloth tassels, most often finished by a row of seashells.

The skull itself is usually shown in profile, although several images do show it

frontally, and may emphasize Tlaltecuhtli’s association with decapitation and

sacrifice. The skull, both when frontal and in profile, is shown pierced through the

temple by a belt (Figures 21a-b). Marked in a number of cases as the skin or

 80

undulating body of a serpent, this belt is iconographically identical to the serpent belts

frequently worn by female deities throughout Central Mexico.3 In the case of

Tlaltecuhtli, this belt may also represent a rail of the tzompantli skull rack, upon which

the skulls of decapitated sacrificial victims were threaded (Figure 21c). Festivals to the

earth goddesses inevitably included the death of the deity impersonator by

decapitation, and it is therefore not inconceivable that these skull ornaments signify

the sacrifice of earth deities or deity impersonators to ensure agricultural fertility.

Tzompantli racks themselves represented themes of agricultural abundance and were

seen as “artificial orchards” because “the wooden racks with their rotting heads were

supposed to be fruit trees with ripe fruit” (Baquedano and Graulich 1993:164 f.n.2).

This dorsal view of Tlaltecuhtli also depicts paper banners hanging from the

deity’s wrists, which appears to connect her to victims of sacrifice. Such associations

are discussed below.

4.2.4 The Tlaltecuhtli 1a “Knife Variant”

An interesting subset of Tlaltecuhtli 1a dorsal views—referred to as the “knife

variant” (Figure 3)—is identified by several features, first among them a blade, at

times personified, which emerges from the deity’s mouth. In this subset, the teeth are

all curved and sometimes rise out from a gum, as opposed to the more generic form of

Tlaltecuhtli 1a that exhibits straight teeth rising directly from the lips. Another

3
Boone, in a discussion of the colossal “Coatlicue” describes this wavy pattern, found on the
necklace of the figure, as indicating blood (1999:191). Baquedano and Graulich link the two
themes, discussing serpents as connected to, among other things, menstrual blood when shown
between the legs (1993:169). Therefore, such a pattern could mark Tlaltecuhtli’s belt as both
serpentine and sanguinary.
 81

distinguishing feature is that this figure, along with the masked joints so characteristic

of Tlaltecuhtli 1 images, wears skulls, pierced through the temple and lashed onto her

forearms and lower legs. These skulls have a double outline characteristic of Gulf

Coast scrollwork and connect this image in some way to Tlaltecuhtli 2. Like

Tlaltecuhtli 1a dorsal views, the “knife variant” also shows paper banners, symbols of

sacrifice, attached to the wrists.

It may be of some interest to note here that several Tlaltecuhtli 1a images show

the deity’s teeth as obsidian blades, and several “knife variant” images similarly depict

the central blade as made of obsidian. In Aztec art, flint and obsidian are easily

distinguished, for flint is marked by a clear serrated edge, while obsidian blades are

shown as having smooth surfaces, the ends sometimes demarcated with a line to show

that they were tipped with blood. Several pieces of evidence suggest that such a

distinction is meaningful. Obsidian, for instance, appears to have been connected with

decapitation and dismemberment, including the dismemberment of a dead fetus to

save the mother’s life (Aguilera 2001:29, 37; Madsen 1960:10; Quezada 1977:314;

Sahagún 1950-82[VI]:160). Heyden discusses the black color of obsidian as a color

that makes one invisible, invincible, and protected, and mentions that it was also

associated with vegetation, rain, mother earth, and creation (1974:12; 1976:25).

Graulich notes, “Cold, black obsidian is exactly the opposite of warm, white flint”

(1997:108). Therefore, while obsidian was used for decapitation and dismemberment,

flint was used for heart sacrifice (Motolinía 1970:32; Sahagún 1950-82[II]:47). “In

opposition to flint, black, cold and nocturnal obsidian was considered as coming from
 82

the inside of the earth and, therefore, perfectly fitted for the rituals on behalf of

Tlaltecuhtli” (Graulich 1988:402). Heart excision, on the other hand “…was a

sacrifice to heavenly fire and to carry it out only a flint knife could be used, for flint

was or contained a spark descended from heaven” (Ibid.:401).

The blade that emerges from the mouth of the Tlaltecuhtli 1a “knife variant”

may be a symbolic tongue. Klein, for instance, discusses knife tongues as “biting” into

flesh and also notes the ties between knives and mouths in Mayan languages (Klein

1976:204 f.n.1). That these knife tongues may have been associated with death and

sacrifice, particularly decapitation, is shown in Aztec offertory caches, where eyes and

a flint nose and tongue were often added to skulls (Figure 22a). Therefore, the knife

tongue would liken this Tlaltecuhtli 1a variant to death and decapitation, possibly

marking her as a sacrificial offering herself.

If mouths, especially the mouth of the earth goddess, were conceptually linked to

wombs—jagged cave wombs in particular—then these knives may also be shown

being born out of the womb of the earth. Strange as this might sound, such events are

discussed throughout Aztec myth, where female goddesses are often associated with

the birth of blades. For instance, Cihuacoatl and Citlalinicue are discussed as giving

birth to knives rather than babies. Caso, for instance, notes that the Aztec people knew

when Cihuacoatl had passed because she would leave an empty cradle with a

sacrificial knife next to it (1970:54, see also Brundage 1979:169, 1972:97,98, 99-100,

161). Nuttall discusses the office of the Cihuacoatl in similar terms, describing its

emblem as “…the flint knife, the offspring of Cihuacoatl, the earth-mother” (1901:62).
 83

Itzpapalotl is sometimes discussed as dying in the process of giving birth to a knife or

bursting into a shower of multicolored flints at her death (Klein 1993, 1994:231,

2000:16; Broda 1987:86; Brundage 1979:171). Especially in the case of Itzpapalotl,

these births should be seen as events of self-sacrifice which take place in order to

provide a means of nourishing the sun with human blood, namely flint and obsidian

knives.

The myth of Citlalicue links knives themselves to creation, for the knife birthed

by the goddess is expelled from heaven by its embarrassed siblings; it falls to earth,

specifically Chicomoztoc, and shatters, becoming the 1600 heroes (Mendieta 1945:83,

Graulich 1997:106). Broda discusses the importance of flint knives as symbols of

origins and beginnings (1987:85), a theory consistent with images from Borgia 32

(Figure 22b) and Vindobonensis 49d, that show deities and other figures born out of

flint knives. This sort of imagery is especially linked with Xipe Totec, who is

associated with the earth through shared connections to agricultural growth and

renewal and is often depicted as a personified blade. The flint blade, as a means of

flaying, represented a means of restoring the new green skin to the earth. Though

knives are clearly connected to growth and renewal, I believe that they should be

understood, first and foremost, as instruments of sacrifice—by heart extraction,

decapitation, and flaying. That they are associated with new beginnings and

agricultural renewal is because they act initially and primarily as symbols of sacrifice.

Therefore, in Tlaltecuhtli 1a images, the deity’s jaws are filled with the primary
 84

instruments of sacrifice—flint and obsidian blades—that were used to nourish the sun

and earth with blood.

Interestingly, all of the Tlaltecuhtli images from cuauhxicalli exhibit the “knife

variant,” so the emergence of the blade, whether as tongue or as a newborn, connect

this variant to blood sacrifice and the offering of blood to the gods. The flint could be

both tongue and newborn in this case; the former would mark her as sacrificial victim

(recalling the origins of Tlaltecuhtli and the deity’s dismemberment by Quetzalcoatl

and Tezcatlipoca) while the latter identifies her as the great mother of sacrifice. She is

both the means of giving blood to the gods as well as their first victim, a further

reference to the overarching theme of duality so pervasive in Aztec religion.

4.2.5 Frontal Views

There are four frontal views of Tlaltecuhtli 1, all of which are found on relief

panels and all of which display the open jaws of the 1a variant (Figure 2) (though the

base of the Stuttgart statuette (Figure 5d) is a possible exception). In these frontal

Tlaltecuhtli 1a images, the skull back ornament is obviously missing. The skull and

crossbones skirt, on the other hand, is emphasized, its architectural form connecting it

to the previously discussed platforms used for rites of healing and curing. Because it is

bordered by star imagery, Seler suggests that this skirt may be the citlalcueitl, or

“starry skirt” discussed in the Florentine Codex as a costuming feature of female

deities (1963[II]:180; see also Nicholson 1954:166-167). However, as Sahagún never

explicitly describes this skirt in visual terms, this theory is by no means proven.
 85

While in three cases the skirt of frontal Tlaltecuhtli 1a is presented as an

architectural feature, in one case it is instead shaped like a bowl (Figure 23a). Taube

discusses the fact that, throughout Mesoamerica, sacrificial bowls were considered

symbolic wombs: “…it is likely that cuauhxicalli symbolized the womb and birth

canal of the earth, the place from which the sun was daily born” (2004:173). The

Huichol, for instance, envision their offering bowls as wombs of the earth mother. The

sun symbol on the interior of these bowls replicates the birth of the sun through the

womb of the earth, just as Maya bowls associated with scenes of birth are so often

marked with the k’in sign. The Aztecs had similar associations of bowls with wombs.

For instance, after Quetzalcoatl fetches the bones of the previous creation of mankind

from the underworld, Cihuacoatl grinds them in a bowl: “And when he had brought

[the bones], the one named Quilaztli, Cihuacoatl, ground them up. Then she put them

into a jade bowl and Quetzalcoatl bled his penis on them” (Bierhorst 1992:146; see

also Matos Moctezuma 1995:42). In this myth the blood of Quetzalcoatl is analogous

to semen, while the bowl serves as the symbolic womb of the earth goddess

Cihuacoatl. In the Borgia codex, skirts or hips are often conceived of as vessels, a

conflation emphasized by the birth of deities and other figures from bowls (Figures

23b-d).

The dead, especially infants, were often buried in vessels in Mesoamerica. Just

as vessels, like cuauhxicalli, were often filled with water or blood, the earth womb

was considered a watery place, symbolic both of the amniotic fluid during pregnancy

and the watery nature of the Underworld to which the dead returned after their
 86

passing. That is why, as Matos Moctezuma discusses, burial and the travels of the soul

through the Underworld reenact, in reverse, pregnancy and birth: “Thus it was not

unusual for a corpse to be placed with its legs bent, to be buried in what specialists call

the fetal position, and for the body to be sprinkled with water. It was a form of

returning to the same position and ambience it had before birth” (1995:33; 1997).

Therefore, the bowl-like skirt of Tlaltecuhtli 1a connects one image particularly to

birth, while the more architectural skirt forms associate the deity more with healing

and medicine, as well as the tzitzimime and cihuateteo.

The primary feature that marks these images of Tlaltecuhtli 1a as frontal views is

the presence of the chalchihuitl sign on her abdomen. This symbol of preciousness and

fertility marks the center of the earth’s body as the “turquoise enclosure,” the “navel of

the earth” (Sahagún 1950-82[I]:84; Ibid.[VI]:19), the womb from which all living

things emerge.4 That identical signs are placed on the abdomens of three-dimensional

sculptures of toads (Figure 14b) not only connects Tlaltecuhtli to toad imagery but

demonstrates that such signs do, indeed, mark Tlaltecuhtli 1a as a frontal view

(Nicholson and Quiñones Keber 1983:116). One relief of Tlaltecuhtli 1a shows the

god Tezcatlipoca, naked like a newborn, stepping out from the earth womb (Figure

2b). This position also indicates birth in the Codex Borgia, where figures are

frequently shown emerging from chalchihuitl signs. Nicholson (1954:170; 1967) links

4
In one case, the chalchihuitl is replaced by an ollin sign, equating this latter symbol with the
earth womb as well. As Nicholson states, this chalchihuitl symbol may also substitute for the
heart, for it represents preciousness “and there was nothing more precious in the Aztec world
view than the human heart, the very sustenance of the gods” (1954:168). For the similarities
between jade beads and hearts also see Durán (1994:285 f.n.4).
 87

this imagery to the creation myth recounted in the Histoire du Mechique in which

Tezcatlipoca and Quetzalcoatl enter the body of Tlaltecuhtli through the mouth and

navel, respectively, to raise the sky from the deity’s collapsed body.

To summarize, the central chalchihuitl sign and the absence of a skull apron

mark certain images of Tlaltecuhtli 1a as frontal views. The angular skirt associates

these frontal Tlaltecuhtli 1a images with themes of curing and low-lying platforms

used for healing rites. One example, however, shows the skirt as a bowl instead of an

architectural feature. Bowls were conceived of as symbolic wombs, connecting frontal

Tlaltecuhtli 1a images to production and birth. Associations of creation are further

emphasized by the central chalchihuitl signs, which mark Tlaltecuhtli 1a as a great,

fecund progenitor and producer of life.

4.3 The Features and Face of Tlaltecuhtli 1b

Tlaltecuhtli 1b is always shown in a dorsal pose5 and the body of the deity is, in

many ways, indistinguishable from dorsal Tlaltecuhtli 1a depictions, showing the

same jawed joints, clawed hands and feet, skull and crossbones skirt, “skin cuffs,”

paper banners, and malinalli hair (Figures 4-5). Her main point of divergence is that

5
The image carved into the base of the Stuttgart statuette (Figure 5d) may be an exception.
With her skirt depicted as a bowl and without a back skull to speak of, this figure may be
shown frontally. Another feature that sets this image apart from other Tlaltecuhtli 1b images is
the fact that her entire face is skeletal, rather than just her jaw. The alabaster rendition of
Tlaltecuhtli 1b (Figure 5b), though poorly reproduced and heavily eroded, appears to have the
same round skeletal eyes as well as a defleshed nose. These two images of Tlaltecuhtli 1b may
represent another variant directly connected to either the tzitzimime demons or the cihuateteo.
Their iconographic similarity to the tzitzimitl portrayed in the Codex Magliabechiano is easy
to see. The figures, however, do lack the paper banners seen in the hair of tzitzimime
depictions, and tzitzimime are generally shown without the skull back ornament so typical of
Tlaltecuhtli.
 88

she bears a female face, oriented upside-down in a position of decapitation. This face

is marked by circles on the cheeks, a skeletal jaw, a personified blade clenched in the

teeth, round earflares, and a striated headband that separates the forehead from the

malinalli hair. Although the meaning of this headband is rather elusive, it gives the

impression that the malinalli hair worn by Tlaltecuhtli 1b is strapped on like a

headdress, perhaps alluding to the wearing of malinalli headdresses by dead lords at

the Tititl festival (Peterson 1983:118).

Klein identifies the face of Tlaltecuhtli 1b as that of Cihuacoatl-Ilamatecuhtli

(1980; 2000:12, Fig. 10b). It is difficult to find support for such a specific

identification, however, especially as Tlaltecuhtli 1b lacks the main attributes that so

often set Cihuacoatl-Ilamatecuhtli apart from more generic earth goddesses,

specifically the batten, shield, and feathered headdress topped by two flint blades seen

in the Borbonicus and Magliabechiano codices (Figure 24). That such features were

considered key to the identity of Cihuacoatl is illustrated by Sahagún, who mentions

the eagle feather headdress and weaving stick as attributes of Cihuacoatl (1950-

82[I]:11). As these represent the key attributes that set Cihuacoatl apart from other

female deities, it is difficult to argue for a Cihuacoatl identity without them. A small

detail that is also worthy of mention is Aguilera’s brief statement that decapitation was

not associated with the astral Cihuacoatl and was related to terrestrial and solar deities

instead (1978). That Tlaltecuhtli 1b is shown as a decapitated victim, then, brings a

Cihuacoatl identification into question.

 89

Because Tlaltecuhtli 1b exhibits all of the more generic traits of the cihuateteo

and tzitzimime, including a skeletal jaw, tangled malinalli hair, and a flint clenched in

the teeth (see Heyden 1974:3), I believe that this is the face of a cihuateotl or tzitzimitl

rather than Cihuacoatl herself. The tzitzimime were female demons associated with

childbirth and healing as well as chaos and destruction. “There was great fear. It was

said that if [the moon] finished eating the sun, so it was said, all would be in darkness;

the tzitzimime would descend here; they would devour us” (Sahagún 1997:153). It was

also believed that these astral demons would descend at the end of the Fifth Sun, while

earthquakes destroyed the world, to devour mankind.

The cihuateteo, women warriors killed in the battle of birth, brought the sun

from its zenith to setting, and, consequently, were held responsible for his death every

night. As Sahagún states, “…the women then began; they carried, they brought down

the sun… They left it there, it is said, where the sun enters. It was said they delivered

it into the hands of… the people of Mictlan… that is, the dead…”(1950-82[VI]:163).

Bearing the decapitated head of a cihuateotl, Tlaltecuhtli 1b recalls the myth of

Coatepec in which enemies of Huitzilopochtli, the sun, are defeated, their leader

decapitated and dismembered. Tlaltecuhtli 1b is thereby associated not only with birth,

but with sacrifice and war as well. That she carries a personified blade in her mouth

further emphasizes these connections to death and sacrifice. The facial striping found

on at least one Tlaltecuhtli 1b image (Figure 4d) may make these associations more

explicit by marking the figure as “…the ‘striped one,’ the one doomed to the sacrificio

gladiatorio” (Seler 1990-[III]:250). That the malinalli hair of Tlaltecuhtli 1b is

 90

separated from the rest of the head by what seems to be a headband may be another

connection to sacrifice, recalling the red leather headband of the four-hundred

Mimixcoa warriors who were sacrificed by Mixcoatl for the sun and earth and became

a model for all subsequent human sacrifice (see Graulich 1988:395). Therefore, in

Tlaltecuhtli 1b images the earth is shown as both the enemy and sacrificial victim of

the sun.

Metaphors of sacrifice evoke the legend of the death of Tlaltecuhtli at the hands

of Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca and her resultant request for blood and human

sacrifice as reparation. Aguilera, for instance, notes that an open mouth, teeth, and

tongue show a deity as a teyollocuani “Eater of hearts,” “…a type of sorceress hungry

to devour human hearts and drink their blood” (2001:14). Aquilera goes on, “The bare

teeth mean desire to bite and the thrust-out tongue is a sign of thirst or being thirsty”

(Ibid.:15; see also Aguilera 1978:46). Others describe protruding tongues and knives

held in the mouth as symbols of death and the ends of life cycles (Klein 1976:204;

Proskouriakoff 1968:248, Thompson 1960:78), an association consistent with

Tlaltecuhtli’s role as a great consumer of human sacrifice. Aguilera’s (1978:46)

argument that the protruding tongue is linked to sexuality, however, also links the

deity to associations of procreation and production.

There are several attributes besides the female head that distinguish Tlaltecuhtli

1b from 1a. Several of these Tlaltecuhtli 1b images, for instance, like the 1a “knife

variant,” have double-outlined skulls lashed on to their forearms and lower legs.

Again, this is a characteristic of Tlaltecuhtli 2 and will be discussed in the section that
 91

follows. Tlaltecuhtli 1b images also often hold skulls in their clawed hands and feet,

perhaps a further allusion to decapitation and the use of the tzompantli rack for the

heads of sacrificed deity impersonators. This characteristic is also shared with

Tlaltecuhtli 2.

4.4 Shared Features of Dorsal Tlaltecuhtli 1a and 1b

There are two features that are shared by dorsal views of Tlaltecuhtli 1a and 1b

that seem to connect these variants with warfare: tails attached to the legs and paper

banners attached to the deity’s wrists. The first of these are most likely representations

of coyote tails, elements seen in the Maya area in imagery associated with

Teotihuacan (Figure 25c). Coyote fur was an important element of warrior costumes at

Teotihuacan, though coyote tails are rarely seen at the site (Stone 1989:156-157, 161).

In Aztec art, these tails may have been shown on the wrists of deities (Figure 25b).

Such coyote tails are also seen at El Tajín, though they are shown attached to the

bottoms of incense bags rather than associated with warrior regalia. A passage from

Sahagún describing a dough effigy of Huitzilopochtli might show they were connected

to this war god: “And his left arm band was hanging from his arm; it was composed of

[strips of] coyote fur, and from it hung paper cut in strips” (1950-82[XII]:51). Stone

(1989:161) discusses the coyote as associated with both the Chichimec roots of the

Aztecs as well as warfare, for the coyote is a great hunter and, therefore, a great

warrior. That all of the dorsal Tlaltecuhtli 1a and 1b images exhibit paper banners tied

onto their wrists further emphasizes this connection to warfare, particularly themes of

capture and defeat. While in the case of Tlaltecuhtli 1a these banners are plain, those
 92

of Tlaltecuhtli 1b are spotted, possibly with rubber. Sahagún connects spotted banners,

called amatetehuitl, to themes of agriculture, stating that they helped “to produce the

greenness, the growth and sprouting” of vegetation (Sahagún 1950-82:42). Generally

speaking, however, paper banners are well known to have been associated with

sacrifice, as they were used to adorn captured warriors and sacrificial victims before

their deaths.6

It is possible that these dorsal Tlaltecuhtli 1a and 1b images are particularly

connected to themes of warfare and sacrifice. Interestingly, the four identical

Tlaltecuhtli 1a reliefs along the edges of the “Stone of the Four Creations” show atl-

tlachinolli signs emerging from either side of the deity (Figure 1e). The relief on the

seat of the Teocalli of Moctezuma, also a dorsal Tlaltecuhtli 1a image, is similarly

flanked by symbols of war, namely shields with darts and spears (Figure 1b). This

may support Klein’s (1988) contention that Tlaltecuhtli’s splayed hocker body

position as one of defeat, for it seems that, at least in the case of dorsal 1a and 1b

figures, sacrifice and defeat were emphasized over fertility and productivity.

4.5 Summary and Conclusions

Through the iconography of Tlaltecuhtli 1, one sees that the Aztec earth was dual

in nature, conceived as both quintessentially fertile and maternal in aspect as well as

lethal, with an insatiable appetite for the bodies of the dead. Frontal Tlaltecuhtli 1a

images, for instance, represent the earth as great producer of living things while dorsal

6
That a fragment of relief beneath a feathered serpent displays both skulls clutched in the feet
and spotted paper banners allows for an identification of the fragment as belonging to the
Tlaltecuhtli 1b category (Figure 5e).
 93

images appear, overall, to emphasize associations of warfare and sacrifice. All of this

imagery, however, should be understood as two sides of the same coin, a combination

of life and death, for the earth both creates life and consumes the dead. The Aztecs

paired their female earth with the male sun in both antagonistic and mutually

dependent relationships. The earth, for instance, was viewed as the consumer and

sacrificial victim of the sun as well as his mother. Despite connections to fertility and

creation, images of Tlaltecuhtli 1 are also shown as victims of sacrifice, recalling the

myth of the earth’s creation and Tlaltecuhtli’s primordial sacrifice as well as the story

of Huitzilopochtli, embodiment of the sun, who defeated his brothers and sisters at

Coatepec.
 Chapter 5: Tlaltecuhtli 2

Tlaltecuhtli 2 (Figures 6-7), the male earth, is easily differentiated from

Tlaltecuhtli 1, for the two forms only share three features universally: the hocker body

position, two-dimensionality, and depictions in straight-on views. It is true, however,

that several elements seen in certain Tlaltecuhtli 1 variants are also seen in Tlaltecuhtli

2 imagery. Tlaltecuhtli 2, for instance, clutches skulls in his hands, which connects

him to Tlaltecuhtli 1b images, despite the fact that Tlaltecuhtli 1b figures clutch the

skulls in both their hands and feet. Tlaltecuhtli 2 also displays skulls lashed onto his

arms and legs, a characteristic shared by the Tlaltecuhtli 1a “knife variant” and several

Tlaltecuhtli 1b depictions. Though this feature is exhibited by some Tlaltecuhtli 1

images, the Gulf Coast style of the skulls indicates that they are really a feature of

Tlaltecuhtli 2. Unlike Tlaltecuhtli 1, which shows both dorsal and frontal positions,

Tlaltecuhtli 2 is only found in frontal views and, as such, always faces the earth.

Unfortunately, as Tlaltecuhtli 2 was the variant most often reworked into Spanish

Colonial forms—like millstones and column bases—the original context and

placement of many of these carvings is unknown.

Tlaltecuhtli 2 is obviously a male deity. He wears a typical male maxtlatl and

displays no feminine features. In the middle of his body is a large feather-edged shield

marked in the center with a quincunx, identical to the kan cross of the Maya.

Projecting out from the sides and bottom of this shield are three pointed elements,

possibly stiff feathers or spear-tips. His arms are shown with double outlines that curl

inward at the elbows and armpits, and he wears undecorated wristlets and booties tied

94
 95

with a tassel. These booties are marked at the heel with a cross and have upturned

toes. Tlaltecuhtli 2 also wears a necklace of double-outlined objects that are possibly

flowers, though they bear a striking resemblance to the curling water or blood symbols

described by Von Winning at Teotihuacan (1987[II]:8). Unlike Tlaltecuhtli 1 images,

which display clawed hands and feet, the hands of Tlaltecuhtli 2 are shown with a

taloned thumb only, while the rest of the fingers are shown in a naturalistic manner.

It is the face of Tlaltecuhtli 2 that is most often cited in the literature. Wearing a

nose and eyebrow mask and displaying a mouthpiece with four conical teeth

depending from a gum-like element, his face is upright, rather than in the position of

decapitation shown by Tlaltecuhtli 1b. His headdress is formed of a horizontal

rectangle with a triple dot motif inside. This rectangle is bordered by two crenellated

elements that curve out and up on each side. Above the headdresses of two Tlaltecuhtli

2 depictions, the sign for “One Rabbit” is seen, a date that references the creation of

the earth.1 The similarity between the face of Tlaltecuhtli 2 and that of the Aztec rain

god has led authors to call this earth deity “Tlalocoid” (Nicholson 1967, 1972),

“Tlaloc-Tlaltecuhtli” (Baquedano and Orton 1990), or “Tlaloc-as-Tlaltecuhtli” (Broda

1983:240), and in some cases has resulted in an unequivocal identification of the

figure as “Tlaloc” (Klein 1973, 1976; Bonifaz Nuño 1986; Fox 1993). Such

1
According to the Leyenda de los Soles, One Rabbit was also the year the sky was established
(Bierhorst 1992: 144, 145). Not only associated with creation and beginnings, One Rabbit was
also a year of drought (see Durán 1994:238) and famine. In the Annals of Cuahtitlan, for
instance, it is said that “the people were one-rabbited,” meaning they suffered a famine
(Bierhorst 1992:103).
 96

straightforward equivalence, however, overlooks the divergence of this deity from

conventional representations of Tlaloc.

Features restricted to Tlaltecuhtli 2 imagery, including the figure’s triple-dot

headdress, facial ornaments, pointed boots, double-scroll arms, and a central shield

marked with a quincunx all appear to connect the deity to the predecessors of the

Aztecs, namely Teotihuacan, El Tajín, and possibly even the Maya. The headdress in

particular connects Tlaltecuhtli 2 to representations of the Teotihuacan Storm God.

The central shield and double outlines may also have prototypes at Teotihuacan.

Though the ropey quality of Tlaltecuhtli 2 may associate it with the Teotihuacan net

jaguar, it may also derive from Gulf Coast scrollwork and thereby links Tlaltecuhtli 2

to the site of El Tajín as well. Crouching figures at El Tajín (Figures 28c,e-f), as well

as Tajín imagery that depicts feathered shields and pointed boots (Figures 28b-c),

underscore these possible Gulf Coast connections, relating Tlaltecuhtli 2 not only to

the luxuriant vegetation and agricultural fertility of the area, but possibly to ballgame

ritual as well. This connection to the ballgame is further emphasized in iconography

from ballcourt markers at the Maya site of Tenam Rosario, though how such

similarities could have survived such spatial and temporal distances is unknown.

Regardless, it appears that the iconography of Tlaltecuhtli 2 drew upon outside and

preceding cultures for inspiration, and thus represents the Aztec visual interpretation

of the old earth, the earth of their predecessors.

 97

5.1 The Face of Tlaloc?

It is difficult to determine whether Tlaltecuhtli 2 does, in fact, represent the god

Tlaloc. On the one hand, the headdress and mouthpiece can both be linked to the

Teotihuacan Storm God, generally accepted to have been the precursor of the Aztec

Tlaloc. On the other hand, the diagnostic goggles of Tlaloc are missing from

Tlaltecuhtli 2. It is true that he wears a mask over his eyes, but this mask curves over

the brow rather than surrounding the eyes. Matos Moctezuma (1997:27) argues that

this eye and nose mask is related to the curving brow ornament worn by Tonatiuh

(Ibid.:30) (Figure 26). Images of Tonatiuh, however, show this ornament as curving

only over the eyes, whereas in the case of Tlaltecuhtli 2 it covers the nose as well.

Though Aztec depictions of Tlaloc sometimes show a nosepiece attached to the

goggles, this nosepiece is always narrow and shown as two twisting strands,

frequently shown as serpents (Figures 26b-c).2 The nosepiece of Tlaltecuhtli 2, on the

other hand, is plain rather than twisted and the nose itself is shown as flat and broad

with flaring nostrils.

These differences between the face mask of Tlaltecuhtli 2 and Tlaloc are highly

significant, for the two features used to identify Tlaloc in Mesoamerican iconography

are his goggles and mouthpiece. At times, the goggles alone are considered sufficient

to identify figures as Tlaloc (see, for instance, Caso 1966, Bonifaz Nuño 1986, Fox

2
Klein argues that this twisted serpent nosepiece of Tlaloc is related to the upright cruller of
the Maya Jaguar God and the underworld sun (1976:82 f.n.2). However, the cruller of the
Jaguar God always loops underneath the deity’s eyes. Sullivan, for her part, sees this double
serpent nosepiece as linking Tlaloc to Tlaltecuhtli by referencing the two serpents that once
tore the earth goddess apart (1972:216).
 98

1993). That Tlaltecuhtli 2 lacks these goggles cannot, therefore, be dismissed. Caso

lists other attributes of the Teotihuacan Storm God—including water torrents, clouds,

jugs marked with the goggles and mouthpiece of the Storm God, shells, five-point

stars, etc. (1966:254-249)—none of which is displayed by Tlaltecuhtli 2. Therefore,

though Tlaltecuhtli 2 does show some of the same features of Tlaloc and the

Teotihuacan Storm God, his features vary enough to call a straightforward “Tlaloc”

identification into question. It may instead be better to use the term “Tlalocoid” to

describe Tlaltecuhtli 2, which suggests a connection to Tlaloc without equating the

two deities.3

Authors have traditionally over-identified Tlaloc in Mesoamerican iconography.

As Pasztory states, “The frequency of goggle-eyed figures and water symbolism in

Teotihuacan art has misled investigators into assuming that all figures with these

associations represent Tlaloc” (1974:15). Berlo similarly notes, “Until recently, a

reductive rather than a deductive method has been used when applying Aztec sources

to the study of Teotihuacan divinities. In a great deal of the literature on Teotihuacan,

just one Aztec god, Tlaloc, has been given preeminence” (1988:130). Singular

attributes, such as the mouthpiece or goggles, are frequently seen as indications of the

whole rather than being dealt with as a complex, a pair of elements that only identify

Tlaloc when joined. Pasztory’s (1974) work on Tlaloc imagery at Teotihuacan is a

noteworthy exception. In her publication, Pasztory argues against the sweeping

3
Though taken from Nicholson (1967, 1972), it must be noted that, like Matos Moctezuma
(1997), I draw a distinction between the “Tlalocoid” Tlaltecuhtli 2 and those images that
represent a direct combination of Tlaltecuhtli with Tlaloc (here referred to as “Tlaloc-
Tlaltecuhtli” figures).
 99

identifications of Tlaloc at Teotihuacan, especially those that do not recognize the

various iconographic markers distinguishing Tlaloc from non-Tlaloc depictions. It is

this important publication that differentiated the “Crododilian Tlaloc” (Tlaloc A) from

the “Jaguar Tlaloc” (Tlaloc B) at Teotihuacan. A study of Teotihuacan iconography by

Von Winning (1987) provides further details about these forms of the Storm God.

Despite their success in better defining the iconography of Tlaloc at Teotihuacan,

Pasztory’s (1974) and Von Winning’s (1987) studies highlight the issues of

nomenclature so prevalent in studies of the precursors of Aztec deities. It is

problematic to call a figure at Teotihuacan by the Nahuatl name of an Aztec deity, not

only because the language of Teotihuacan is still unknown, but because the

Teotihuacan rain god long predates the advent of Tlaloc in the Aztec pantheon.

Pasztory argues in favor of the use of Aztec names for non-Aztec deities: “In order to

avoid cumbersome descriptions for Teotihuacan deities whose names are forever lost

to us, there is practical value to using the name of a corresponding Aztec deity when

such a correspondence can be established, although the reference must be qualified as

being to the Teotihuacan version of the deity” (Pasztory 1972:152). The use of Aztec

names, however, even with the qualifier “Teotihuacan,” often implies direct

equivalencies and deemphasizes the time, geography, and religious development that

separated deity forms in Mesoamerica. Therefore, though such nomenclature is often

useful in a practical sense, it should be regarded with a measure of caution. In this

study, I attempt to avoid an implied equivalence between the Aztec and Teotihuacan
 100

rain gods by referring to the former as “Tlaloc” and the latter as the “Teotihuacan

Storm God.”

That Tlaltecuhtli 2 would wear certain features of the Aztec Tlaloc or the

Teotihuacan Storm God is not surprising, for these deities appear to have been

associated as much with earth as with rain. The mouthpiece and headdress of

Tlaltecuhtli 2 connect him to the agricultural associations of the Aztec rain deity, who

was patron of the rainy season (Broda 1983:239) and the first procurer of maize

(Ibid.:233; Bierhorst 1992:147). Tlaloc was associated with both the earth and the sky.

Rituals to Tlaloc, for instance, took place both at mountains and lakes (Matos

Moctezuma 1983:204). Though authors often describe him as a celestial deity, this

association generally rests on a single image from Codex Vaticanus 3738 which shows

Tlaloc as the ruler of the second layer of heaven (Klein 1976:80). Both Graulich

(1997:124) and Caso (1970:61), however, note that Tlalocan in this Vaticanus image,

though located between the earth and sun, is by far closer to the former than the latter

(see also Broda 1983:243 f.n.34). Tlaloc often appears to have been more closely

associated with terrestrial than celestial themes. In the Historia de los Mexicanos por

sus pinturas, for instance, Tlaloc is called the god of the underworld (Garibay

1973:30). Even rain, the special office of Tlaloc, was not necessarily a celestial

concept, for clouds and rain were believed to be created inside hills and mountains,

residences of the lesser tlaloques (Klein 1976:80 f.n.2; López Austín 1990:104;
 101

Heyden 1976:27).4 As a result, Tlaloc was more often associated with caves than the

sky (see, for instance, Sullivan 1972:216; Alcina Franch 1995:31). As Gillespie states,

“Tlaloc was the master of celestial waters (rain) but his name refers to the earth

(tlalli), and he was said to live under the earth…” (1989:88).

An understanding of Tlaloc relies heavily on the translation of his name, a topic

often debated in the literature. Sullivan (1972) gives, by far, the most comprehensive

and convincing linguistic analysis of the decipherment of Tlaloc’s name, arguing that,

“Strictly and grammatically speaking the name Tlaloc must be related to the adjective

tlallo which means ‘full of earth’, ‘covered with earth’, ‘made of earth’, the plural of

which is tlalloque, which also happens to be the plural of Tlaloc and the name for the

multiple gods of rain” (Ibid.:215). Therefore, Sullivan determines that Tlaloc, above

all, was an earth god: “Tlalloc means, ‘he who has the quality of earth’, ‘he who is

made of earth’, ‘he who is the embodiment of the earth’” (Ibid.:216). Tlaloc,

consequently, should be understood as an earth deity, and the use of his attributes on

the face of Tlaltecuhtli 2 should be understood as consistent with this terrestrial

identification. As Sullivan states, “Surely, the mutual dependence of earth upon water

and water upon earth in the cultivation of crops did not escape the Pre-Columbian

farmer…” (1972:217).

4
Similar terrestrial associations of the rain gods are seen throughout Mesoamerica. For
instance, the rain gods of the Yucatec Maya, Mixtecs, and Huastecs were all believed to live
underground (Klein 1976:81; Redfield and Villa Rojas 1934:205,207). In the Maya area,
caves were places of worship for both the rain and earth gods, and the lesser chaacs were
believed to inhabit cenotes and caves. As Thompson states, “…the gift of rain is usually in the
hands of mountain or earth gods” (1970:183).
 102

Lacking the goggles and certain other attributes of Tlaloc, Tlaltecuhtli 2 cannot

be directly equated with this rain god, though the two should be understood as deities

whose offices were deeply entwined. The mouthpiece and headdress, for instance,

connect Tlaltecuhtli 2 to the associations of Tlaloc and the Teotihuacan Storm God,

including rain, fertility, and the production of maize. Despite his close aquatic

associations, though, Tlaloc was, above all, a terrestrial deity, connected to mountains

and caves, his name translating as “he who is the embodiment of the earth” (Sullivan

1972:216). Interestingly, like sacrifices to Tlaltecuhtli, children sacrificed to Tlaloc

did not have their hearts excised; their throats were instead slit and they were

afterwards put in boxes, thrown into water, or shut in caves (Motolinía 1970:34-35).

Therefore, though Tlaltecuhtli 2 is not Tlaloc, it is easy to see how closely the two are

related.

5.1.1 Tlaloc-Tlaltecuhtli: a Deity Variant

Two Tlaltecuhtli images show the earth wearing the true face of Tlaloc. One is

found beneath the Chac Mool of the Templo Mayor (Figure 34a) and the other is a

relief panel (Figure 34b). Such imagery not only stresses the important relationship

between earth and water, but also highlights the difference between the face of

Tlaltecuhtli 2 and that of Tlaloc. As there are only two images that show this kind of

direct combination of Tlaloc with Tlaltecuhtli, however, and as the two are not similar

enough to be considered a clear category in themselves, these images are considered

outside the categories set forth by this study.

 103

The Chac Mool Tlaltecuhtli form wears the twisted nose and brow element, the

goggles, and curving teeth of Tlaloc, as well as the fanned paper headdress typically

worn by Tlaloc in Aztec depictions. This figure may also display the year-sign

element so well known from Maya adoptions of the Teotihuacan Storm God. The

body, on the other hand, appears to be that of Tlaltecuhtli 1a. With clawed hands and

feet, jawed joints, and arm and leg cuffs edged with bells, this figure lacks the spotted

banners and coyote tails typical of dorsal Tlaltecuhtli 1a and 1b images and does not

hold skulls in its hands like Tlaltecuhtli 1b. The orientation of the head, however,

which is upside-down, recalls the decapitated head of Tlaltecuhtli 1b. Because the

headdress covers so much of the figure’s torso, it is difficult to know whether the

viewer is confronted by a frontal or dorsal view. However, since the skirt is seen

wrapped tightly around the thighs, with angled edges, the image appears to conform

more to dorsal views of Tlaltecuhtli 1. The background of this Chac Mool Tlaltecuhtli

is formed of an assortment of sea creatures on a wavy ground.

The second image that blends Tlaltecuhtli and Tlaloc (Figure 34b) is exquisite in

its complexity. Shown with a double Tlaloc head or headdress—similar to a sculpture

found at Castillo de Teayo (Figure 34c)— this image shows two bodies, one lying on

top of the other, both with heads upside down in the posture of decapitation. The

bottom figure displays typical Aztec Tlaloc attributes: a paper fan headdress, goggled

eyes, and a curving, toothy mouthpiece. A small portion of a skirt with an angled hem

is visible, possibly marking this as a female body, and demonstrating that this Tlaloc is

lying face down. Most striking, though, is the fact that the body of this Tlaloc is
 104

shown as water itself. Though only a small section of the left arm is visible, it is

marked with waves and jade beads of preciousness. This Tlaloc’s body is, quite

literally, a body of water.

The second figure, which lies on top of this Tlaloc water body, wears the same

triple-dot headdress and crenellated elements as Tlaltecuhtli 2, thus referencing the

Teotihuacan Storm God rather than the later Aztec Tlaloc. Unlike Tlaltecuhtli 2,

however, this figure wears both the goggles and mouthpiece of the Teotihuacan Storm

God. The body itself, carved with double outlined arms and legs with skulls lashed

onto them are also directly connected to Tlaltecuhtli 2 imagery. However, in this case,

the figure is shown in an obviously frontal view, with pendulous breasts and a central

ollin sign on the abdomen. Unlike the Chac Mool version, the skirt here is shown with

a straight, horizontal hem, further evidence of frontality. The skirt is decorated with

the characteristic skull and crossbones motif which, alongside the large breasts, mark

the body as unquestionably female. The background of these strangely layered figures

contains spiral shells. It is difficult to know what to do with such a complex image as

this. Most likely it has to do with the fertile earth floating upon the sea, but why it

differs so much from both the Chac Mool image and images of Tlaltecuhtli 2 is

unclear. Due to its utter and remarkable iconographic complexity, this Tlaloc-

Tlaltecuhtli should be examined in far more detail (see Gutiérrez Solana 1990; Matos

Moctezuma 1997; Baquedano 1988; Baquedano and Graulich 1993:164; Pasztory

1988:296). Such in depth study of these Tlaloc-Tlaltecuhtli figures, however, is

beyond the scope of this thesis.

 105

5.2 Connections to Teotihuacan

Several of the features of Tlaltecuhtli 2 can be directly linked to Teotihuacan.

First among these is the triple-dot headdress with out-turned crenellated elements, a

headdress that is identical to that worn by the variant of the Teotihuacan Storm God

that Von Winning describes as “Lightning Tlaloc” (1987[I]:68) (Figure 27a).

Interestingly, however, several non-Storm God figures are shown with this headdress

at Teotihuacan, which may indicate that it was used by the Aztecs as a general

reference to Teotihuacan rather than a specific reference to the rain deity. The

mouthpiece of Tlaltecuhtli 2 is also directly borrowed from Teotihuacan prototypes,

though in many ways it bears more of a resemblance to the conical spider mouths of

the Teotihuacan Spider Woman (Taube 1983) than to the longer, downward-curving

teeth more typical of the Storm God. Whether mouthpiece of the Storm God or Spider

Woman, this feature links Tlaltecuhtli 2 to themes of agricultural fertility and

abundance, associations carried by both of these Teotihuacan deities. Taube also

identifies the feathered rim of the shield born by Tlaltecuhtli 2 as a Teotihuacan-style

mirror rim (1998:34; 1992), further linking this deity to Teotihuacan prototypes.

Interestingly, shields marked with the attributes of the Storm God—a row of three dots

above a quincunx cross and curling lip element—are seen throughout Teotihuacan,

recalling the triple-dot headdress, mouthpiece, and shield worn by Tlaltecuhtli 2 (see

Von Winning 1987[II]:65) (Figures 27b-c). Von Winning links the quincunx motif to

jade and water, stating that, at Teotihuacan, it refers “…to terrestrial water, to water

accumulated from rain ” (1987[II]:11).

 106

The feathered rim and internal quincunx of this central shield also bear a striking

resemblance to the shield carried by a net jaguar in a Teotihuacan mural (Figure 27d),

where the central ollin sign divides the interior space just as the quincunx does in the

Tlaltecuhtli 2 shield. Nicholson describes the quincunx as a common chalchihuitl

variant in Aztec art (1967:82). Just as the ollin sign is substituted for the chalchihuitl

sign in one frontal view of Tlaltecuhtli 1a, the ollin and quincunx shields may both be

related to ideas of the earth’s center. Tlaltecuhtli 2, then, is most likely being shown in

a frontal view, though connections of his quincunx shield to the back mirrors of

Teotihuacan warriors may contradict this theory. The double outlining found on the

arms of Tlaltecuhtli 2 further links the figure to the Teotihuacan net jaguar, who is

shown as an entire being composed of intermeshed ropes (Figures 27e-f). Associations

with the net jaguar do not necessarily contradict Tlaloc connections, for the two

appear to have been related at Teotihuacan (Pasztory 1988:290). Covarrubias (1971)

connects certain Tlaloc forms to the Olmec were-jaguar while Pasztory discusses

Tlaloc B as the “Jaguar Tlaloc” (1974:15-16). Baquedano (1984:18-19) also notes that

Tlaloc was born from the union of a man and jaguar, a fact that may explain the

combination of the clawed thumbs of Tlaltecuhtli 2 with otherwise human hands.

Though there may be a relationship between Tlaltecuhtli 2 and jaguar imagery

from Teotihuacan, the headdress and mouthpiece of Tlaltecuhtli 2 associate the deity

more with the crocodilian version of the Storm God, Pasztory’s (1974) “Tlaloc A.”

One of the most important features supporting such a differentiation are that the lips of

Tlaltecuhtli 2 are consistently portrayed curling up at the corners, whereas Pasztory’s

 107

“Tlaloc B” has feline lips that turn down (1974:17). The second factor supporting a

crocodilian source for the Teotihuacan features exhibited by Tlaltecuhtli 2 is that he

does not exhibit the forked tongue so characteristic of felines and jaguars in

Teotihuacan art (Ibid.:18). The crocodile associations of Tlaltecuhtli 2 link him to

cipactli, the great earth crocodile that floats on the surface of the sea. It should be

mentioned, however, that Tlaltecuhtli 2 lacks many of the diagnostic features of

“Tlaloc A,” perhaps indicating that the Aztecs were conflating several Storm God

types from Teotihuacan. With so much time having passed since the height of

Teotihuacan, a more generic version of this Storm God would make sense, for the

Aztecs may not have understood the differences among the different Storm God

variants, details that only came to light in contemporary scholarship through the

extensive analyses of such authors as Pasztory and Von Winning.

Like Tlaltecuhtli, Pasztory’s “Tlaloc A” was a symbol of the earth itself, a fact

demonstrated in imagery that shows trees sprouting from the deity’s body. As

Pasztory argues, this Teotihuacan deity was a god of both water and earth, which may

explain why there is no known “earth deity” per se from Teotihuacan (Ibid.:19; see

also Arnold 1999:43). This further stresses the problems inherent in labeling the

Crocodilian Storm God of Teotihuacan “Tlaloc,” for it appears that this ancient deity

was a combination of both earth and water, equivalent to a combination of the Aztec

Tlaltecuhtli and Tlaloc. As Sullivan states, “…Tlaloc appears to be one with the earth,

and it is possible that he was first conceived of as a dual god of earth and water and

that his function as god of rain may have been a later development” (1972:217).
 108

5.3 Connections to the Gulf Coast

Though iconography from Teotihuacan appears to strongly influence Tlaltecuhtli

2 imagery, the Gulf Coast is equally represented, particularly the culture of El Tajín.

While the emulation and recollection of Teotihuacan is well known in Aztec art, a

direct relationship with Gulf Coast prototypes is somewhat more unusual.

Nevertheless, though his double outlined arms may connect Tlaltecuhtli 2 to the

Teotihuacan net jaguar, the double outline itself is characteristic of El Tajín art, where

double scrollwork is considered a stylistic marker not only of the site, but of the Gulf

Coast in general. Furthermore, shields with interlocked ollin elements are as

numerous at El Tajín as they are at Teotihuacan. Several of the Tajín shield examples

even show projecting elements or interlocked spears (Figures 28a-b), reminiscent of

the points that project from the sides and bottom of the Tlaltecuhtli 2 quincunx shield.

Shoes with upturned toes are also characteristic of El Tajín (Figure 28c), though the

crosses on the heels of the booties worn by Tlaltecuhtli 2 are not known at the site.

Squatting figures in hocker-like positions, while completely absent from

Teotihuacan imagery, are present throughout El Tajín art (see Fox 1993:58). Among

others, three Tajín images in particular suggest that Aztec artists directly borrowed

aspects of Gulf Coast styles to form Tlaltecuhtli 2. All three show supernatural figures

in the hocker position while two of the figures display wide, flat noses (as do other

images at the site) and curved brows (Figure 28e). With so much else borrowed from

the art of El Tajín, it is more than possible that the brow and nose mask of Tlaltecuhtli

2 was meant to relate the figure to Gulf Coast cultures. A third image shows a deity in
 109

descent, wrapped in ropes and wearing not only the conical teeth of Tlaltecuhtli 2 but

a small central shield as well (Figure 28f).

Koontz identifies several figures at El Tajín as Tlaloc, connecting them to

themes of death and creation. On the one hand, these figures are seen receiving the

severed heads of sacrificial victims from the ballgame (Ibid.:74-75). On the other

hand, they appear to be associated with creation themes as well. For instance, one

scene from Ballcourt Panel 5 shows a squatting figure, identified as Tlaloc, who

performs penis auto-sacrifice over the bones of a prior creation (see Koontz 1994:76,

79-80; Wilkerson 1991:65). This scene may be linked to the Leyenda de los Soles

myth of Quetzalcoatl letting blood over the ground bones of the previous creation (see

Taube 1986:54-56). As a creator god, this Tajín figure was utilized in art as a means of

legitimating rule, specifically through his presence in scenes of ritual accession

(Koontz 1994:173), rites that, for the most part, were related to the ballgame,

decapitation, and sacrifice. According to Koontz, Tlaloc figures found in the

iconography of El Tajín also indicate that creation was envisioned as a joining of the

forces of earth and water, “…the mountain that raises the sky in preparation for the

emergence of humans and the watery place where humanity is born” (Ibid.:83). As

was found to be the case at Teotihuacan, the use of “Tlaloc” to identify Tajín deities is

problematic, not only because the site predates the Aztecs by five hundred years, but

also because residents were not Nahuatl speakers. Regardless, it is important to note

that figures with the attributes similar to those of Tlaloc are associated at El Tajín

particularly with scenes of death, creation, accession, and the ballgame.

 110

The skull ornaments lashed onto the arms and legs of Tlaltecuhtli 2 may also be

derived from Gulf Coast forms. Shell gorgets from the Huastec area (Figure 28g), for

instance, as well as Aztec pedestals and cuauhxicalli carved to emulate the Tajín

sculptural style (Figure 28h) demonstrate that skulls in this double-outlined form refer

to the Gulf Coast. The only analogy to the wearing of these skulls on the forearms and

legs of Tlaltecuhtli 2 are the knee-pads worn by ballplayers—shown clearly in the

Tajín ballcourt panels (Figure 28d) and known from the Maya area as well. This

connection is tenuous, however, and requires more study. Several elements found in

Tlaltecuhtli 2 imagery seem to connect the deity to the ballgame. El Tajín ballplayers,

for instance, wear “…a plumed circle holding a pendant train of feathers at the rear of

their waists” (Kampen 1972:47) (Figure 28d), an element analogous, though in no way

identical, to the feathered shield in the center of the body of Tlaltecuhtli 2. The skulls

held in the earth deity’s hands may also refer to rites of decapitation so well known as

the outcome of the ballgame.

Gulf Coast yokes, ceremonial objects that replicate ballplaying gear in stone, are

themselves associated with the earth monster motif (Wilkerson 1991:56). As Tatiana

Proskouriakoff describes: “Commonly this form is modified into a curious grotesque

combining reptilian and feline features and thought to represent a mythological earth-

monster” (1960:72; see also Furst 1972:37). According to Wilkerson, the earth

monster carved on these yokes “…places the wearer symbolically in the ‘underworld’

or its entrance and, therefore, in a symbolic closeness to death” (1991:56, 1984:116;

see also Gillespie 1991:338). Though Proskouriakoff describes these yokes as part of
 111

the “Classic Veracruz” style and distinct from El Tajín (1960), the connection between

the ballgame and representations of the earth nonetheless appears to be a characteristic

theme of Gulf Coast art.

Though El Tajín is not generally emphasized as a direct source of Aztec

borrowing, the image of Tlaltecuhtli 2 demonstrates a high degree of emulation of

Gulf Coast styles. Though the full meaning of these stylistic and iconographic

influences are unknown at this time, the Gulf Coast was known as a green and fertile

place, associated with the coming of the rains and the fertilizing wind breath of

Quetzalcoatl. Interestingly, a Tlaltecuhtli variant from the Huastec area even shows

Quetzalcoatl in the hocker position with the clawed hands of Tlaltecuhtli (Figure 36a).

The appearance of Tajín imagery in representations of Tlaltecuhtli 2, like that of the

Teotihuacan Storm God, might therefore allude to themes of rain and agricultural

abundance. Connections to El Tajín also associate Tlaltecuhtli 2 specifically with the

ballgame, a ritual complex so important in the imagery of the Gulf Coast and linked to

themes of agricultural renewal and the repayment of blood debt to the gods.

5.4 The Aztec Earth and the Ballgame

That the earth and the ballgame were closely related is substantiated by Aztec

myth. The ballcourt itself was considered a microcosm of the universe, in which the

daily cycle of the sun as well as the changes of the seasons were replayed and

confirmed. As Graulich states, “In this game the passage of the ball from one side to

the other was supposed to secure the alternation of the seasons” (1988:402; see also

Baquedano and Graulich 1993:168). Seasonal change was also a feature of the
 112

relationship between the earth and the sun; the former was connected to agriculture

and the rainy season, while the latter was connected to the dry season and warfare.

These themes come together in the migration myth of the Aztecs, in which

Huitzilopochtli kills Coyolxauhqui at Coatepec, slitting her throat and excising her

heart over the center of the ballcourt at midnight, an act which makes the water,

vegetation, and animals disappear (Durán 1994:27). This event symbolizes the defeat

of the terrestrial rainy season by the solar dry season (Baquedano and Graulich

1993:168) as well as the triumph of day over night. As Huitzilopochtli’s first actions

at Coatepec include both the creation of a ballcourt as well as the erection of a

tzompantli, one might infer that Coyolxauhqui was decapitated rather than simply

having her throat slit. Therefore, this myth may celebrate the first Aztec double

immolation, the first sacrifice given to both the earth and sun. Decapitation,

characteristic of sacrifices to the earth, is well known to have been associated with

ballgame ritual, and is explicitly referenced in imagery from El Tajín. The association

between the ballgame, decapitation, and agricultural fertility is similarly referenced in

imagery that depicts decapitated ballplayers with snakes and plants sprouting from

their necks (Baquedano and Graulich 1993:167-168; Hellmuth 1975:16 pl.8, 17 pl.9;

1978:80).

Scenes from the Borgia Codex visually express the conflation of the ballcourt

with the body of the earth. In Borgia 35 (Figure 30a), for instance, a figure dressed in

the skin of cipactli, the crocodilian earth, is shown with his four limbs in the hocker

position, spread to the four corners of the ballcourt. The center of the figure is marked
 113

as a large red circle, perhaps a conflation of the rubber ball and the great earth

opening, the entryway to Mictlan, believed to mark the center of the field. This

underworld realm was also called tlaxicco, “the navel of the earth” (Klein 1973:71).

Gillespie discusses the four-quartered ballcourt and the four-limbed human body as

metaphors for the quadrapartite division of the world (1991:336-337) (Figure 30b),

while Seler states, “The earth, stretching in all directions, was divided into special

sectors, just like the ball ground” (1990-[V]:7). Klein, for her part, places

Tlaltecuhtli’s head at the western horizon and her “hind quarters” probably at the

eastern horizon (1973:71). Though the hocker position present in all Tlaltecuhtli

imagery designates the earth body as organized into four quarters, Tlaltecuhtli 2

figures particularly emphasize this theme. The central shield with its quincunx and the

small crosses on the booties mark the deity as representing the four quarters of the

world as well as its center.5 Interestingly, this quincunx not only refers to spatial

concepts but time as well. Since “…the kan cross itself signified the 365 day solar

cycle and the concept of completed time…” (Klein 1976:196, 1980:180), it marks the

body of Tlaltecuhtli 2 as the place of beginnings and endings, the center of both time

and space.

5.5 Tenam Rosario: the Maya and the Ballgame

Ballcourt markers from the Maya site of Tenam Rosario, Guatemala, further

emphasize the connection of Tlaltecuhtli 2 to the ballgame, though how such imagery

5
This directionality is also a quality of Tlaloc who, as Sullivan explains “…had a five-fold
nature and he was conceived as sitting in the center of the courtyard of his four-sided domain
directing the work of those extensions of himself called the Tlaloque” (Sullivan 1972:213).
 114

could have been transmitted across such time and space is unknown. Fox (1993)

identifies these Tenam Rosario figures as ballplayers. They do appear to wear the

thickly-padded waistbands seen in ballgame imagery throughout the Maya area, and

all of them wear what might be palmas, one shown as a frontal skull. In many ways,

however, their gear marks them more as warriors than ballplayers. Stone, for instance,

describes the Tenam Rosario figures as wearing Teotihuacan warrior costumes,

including atl atl darts, a shield and spear, “…rings around the eyes, furry wrist and

ankle bands with pendant furlike elements, a nose bar, and the scroll-jawed Tlaloc

mask…” (Stone 1989:165). It must be remembered that the goggles worn by figures in

Maya art, though often viewed as Tlaloc identifiers, are frequently markers of warrior

status instead. Furthermore, in most Maya art representing ballplayers, there is usually

a suggestion of either a ballcourt or a ball, both of which are missing in the Tenam

Rosario depictions. A linear association between these figures and the ballgame is

therefore questionable, as the figures at Tenam Rosario seem to blend the

paraphernalia of the ballgame with the regalia of war. This, then, connects Tlaltecuhtli

both to the ballgame and to warfare. Further study is necessary, as such associations

contradict the more peaceful symbolism of the Teotihuacan Storm God and the Aztec

Tlaloc.

Another intriguing detail of the Tenam Rosario figures is that they show

projecting elements similar to those found on the central kan shield of Tlaltecuhtli 2,

though it should be mentioned that, while the Tenam Rosario figures show two

horizontal elements, Tlaltecuhtli 2 shows three, one facing downward. Klein

 115

(1980:162) argues that these horizontal projections, when found on Tlaltecuhtli 2, are

breasts, designating Tlaltecuhtli 2 as ambiguously-sexed. Such an identification,

however, seems implausible, not only because there are three of them, but because,

rather than being modeled with the roundness of breasts, they are somewhat pointed

and are bifurcated lengthwise by an incised line. It is possible that they instead are

flints or spears, though the format is unconventional. They may also be feathers; like

feathers, they are bifurcated. Unlike standard portrayals of feathers, however, they are

shown as though they are stiff rather than flexible. Interestingly, a mural from the Gulf

Coast site of Las Higueras (Figure 29c) depicts an elaborately costumed squatting

figure wearing a central shield bordered by four solar ray symbols, providing yet

another alternative for the shield of Tlaltecuhtli 2 and suggesting that Tlaltecuhtli 2

imagery may have been drawn from the Huastec area as well.

5.6 Summary and Conclusions

Although certain themes of centrality and agriculture link Tlaltecuhtli 2 to the

Tlaltecuhtli 1 variant, for the most part the iconography of the two groups is distinct.

While the symbols and styles of Tlaltecuhtli 1 draw on purely Aztec forms, for

instance, those seen in Tlaltecuhtli 2 are all linked to outside cultures. These cultures

are all ancestral, all predecessors of the Aztecs. Teotihuacan, for example, is well

known to have been a source of legitimacy for Aztec leaders as well as a source for

religious iconography. The Aztecs also regarded it as the birthplace of the Fifth Sun.

El Tajín was a precursor of the Aztec civilization as well, but its most important

associations were to the ballgame, decapitation ritual, and the lush verdure of the Gulf
 116

Coast. Connections to the Maya site of Tenam Rosario are more mysterious. Though

the Aztecs had clear trade associations with the Yucatan Peninsula, direct influences

from Classic period Guatemala are more difficult to prove or comprehend. An

interesting fact to note is that little, if any, of Tlaltecuhtli 2 imagery can be connected

to the site of Tula, so often referenced by the Aztecs in art. However, it must be

remembered that the “Toltecs” for the Aztecs were any great and ancient civilization,

and thus that the sites of Teotihuacan, El Tajín, and even the Maya area may have all

been conceived as Toltec centers.

 Chapter 6: Conclusion

The earth played a critical role in the worldview of the Aztecs. Throughout

sixteenth-century accounts of Aztec life and ritual, Tlaltecuhtli is described as a vital

life force, a great consumer of human blood, and the representation of the order that

arose—by violent means—from primordial chaos. The body of Tlaltecuhtli also

represented the world center, the intersection of the four directional quadrants. The

earth was not only the center of physical space, however, but also of life cycles.

Because Tlaltecuhtli’s dismemberment marked the world’s foundation and because it

was believed that earthquakes would proclaim its termination, this deity was also a

symbol of the beginning and end of the current creation. “[O]n the day of judgment,

the earth will turn over; the bottom side will be uppermost, and all present-day people

will be destroyed” (López Austín 1988:246). Indeed, the end of the Fifth Sun by

earthquakes was seen as the absolute end of all time, for the world would not be

renewed: “In the Fifth Sun… the possibilities for creation were exhausted” (Ibid.:240).

Tlaltecuhtli, then, not only combined the forces of production with those of

destruction, but represented for the Aztecs the absolute center of space and time.

Relief images of Tlaltecuhtli were believed by the Aztecs to personify the

divinity of the deity, embodying these powers of life and death, beginnings and

endings. As López Austín states, “There is such a resemblance between image and god

that some visible forms charged with sacred power are considered to be gods

themselves” (1990:138). To study these images, the receptacles the Aztecs created to

house the divine substance and power of Tlaltecuhtli, is to come to know the face and

117
 118

the body of the earth itself. Supernatural forces had a real, physical quality for the

Aztecs, “For the Nahuatl man, some of the supernatural beings had a reality as present,

as immediate, as daily as he could capture through his senses. The supernatural was

judged to be material, potentially visible, tangible, and audible” (López Austín

1988:383). To analyze the material manifestation of the earth, brought to physical life

through these relief sculptures of Tlaltecuhtli, is to seek a deeper understanding of the

manner in which the Aztecs situated themselves vis à vis the natural earth and the

supernatural deity who governed it.

An extensive study by López Austín (1988) emphasizes the importance of the

human body in understanding the greater intersections between the ideological and the

physical world. Tlaltecuhtli, unlike the world models of cipactli and cemanahuac,

represents a uniquely anthropomorphic conception of the earth. Unlike other Mexican

cultures, whose open-jawed earths can be seen in the Borgia group and Mixtec

codices, the Aztecs envisioned their earth with a full human body (Gutiérrez Solana

1983:20). It is therefore important to study the details of Tlaltecuhtli’s body as a first

step in locating the deity in the Aztec ideological world. The human body and the

body of the earth were often equated in the Nahuatl language. In many incantations,

for instance, the human body was called chicomoztoc, because the seven wombs of the

earth mother were seen as analogous to the seven openings of the human body (López

Austín 1988:163). The human body and its soft tissues at times were even called “the

earth, the mud” (“in tlallotl, in zoquiotl”) (Ibid.). As López Austín argues, the human

body was both a world model and vessel of divine energy. It embodied the
 119

overarching structure of the universe, the hierarchical distinctions between social

classes, and the individual life forces of the soul like the tonalli and the teyolia. That

Tlaltecuhtli was conceived of as an anthropomorphic being, then, links the earth body

to all of the frameworks within which the Aztecs sought to organize and understand

their society and cosmos.

6.1 Summary of Arguments:

The Aztec earth was a duality, representing the crucial opposition and mutual

dependence of male and female, life and death, production and destruction. Through

close iconographic study, one can better understand the patterns behind Tlaltecuhtli

representations by differentiating between that which is typical and that which is an

exception. Typical representations of Tlaltecuhtli have been shown to share three

features: straight-on depictions, two-dimensionality, and the hocker position. Study of

the individual details of Tlaltecuhtli images shows that they are systematically

distributed, adhering to strict rules that clearly distinguish two very different

Tlaltecuhtli variants. Between the two forms, Tlaltecuhtli 1 shows much more internal

variation, while Tlaltecuhtli 2 images vary so little that one wonders if a template was

used in their making. It is through iconographic definition and the detailed analysis of

which details comprise each Tlaltecuhtli variant that one determines the parameters of

the imagery under study. These parameters exclude such images as head and crocodile

variants (Figures 31a-d) as well as Tlaltecuhtli deity variants, which include

Tlalchitonatiuh (Figure 33), two conflated Tlaloc-Tlaltecuhtli figures (Figure 34), a

Quetzalcoatl-Tlaltecuhtli image from the Huastec area (Figure 36a), and a conflated
 120

Itzpapalotl-Tlaltecuhtli relief (Figure 36b). There are also images from the Maya area

and South America that show considerable iconographic parallels to representations of

Tlaltecuhtli (Figure 32). Though all of these merit further study, they lie outside of

true Tlaltecuhtli imagery, and have therefore been excluded from the categories set

down in this thesis.

The argument that Tlaltecuhtli is ambiguously gendered has been shown to be

untenable. A close analysis of iconographic markers indicates instead a dual earth, one

male and one female, whose features, for the most part, are non-exchangeable. This

fundamental duality of the earth is also seen in myth, where Tlaltecuhtli is designated

as both a primordial victim of sacrifice and its great proponent. From the deity’s

dismembered body sprout all of the things necessary to support life, but in exchange

Tlaltecuhtli cries out for blood and human sacrifice. In myth, then, the deity is seen

both as the creator and source of agricultural production, as well as the consumer of

the dead. The duality of Tlaltecuhtli is also expressed in myth and ritual in the pairing

of the earth with the sun. Though the earth is often seen as secondary to the sun, I

argue that these entities were instead viewed as a pair, opposing forces whose

coupling was considered crucial in the continued functioning of the universe.

Tlaltecuhtli, often overlooked in contemporary scholarship as a great consumer of

human sacrifice, was propitiated with ritual decapitation, while the sun received the

hearts extracted from sacrificial victims.

Earth imagery, therefore, provides substantial support for the all-pervasive

quality of the Aztec worldview in which opposites “…are conceived at the same time
 121

to be polar and complementary pairs, their elements interrelated by their opposition as

contraries…” (López Austín 1988:52). Such tension between opposing forces gave

sense and meaning to the Aztec universe by explaining “…its diversity, its order, and

its movement” (Ibid.). This overarching principle of duality found its most basic

expression in the figure of Ometeotl, in whose form the creative and contrasting forces

of male and female were combined. As Léon-Portilla explains, “Whatever pantheism

there might be in the wise men’s concept of the Divine and of the world would only be

described by such a hybrid term as the dynamic ‘Omeyotization’ (‘dualization’) of the

universe” (1963:99,103). Earth imagery, then, expresses and reinforces the

fundamental duality by which the Aztecs structured their universe and demonstrates

how this concept permeated all aspects of Aztec ideological and social life. This

duality is clearly expressed not only in the oppositional pairing of sun and earth, but in

the division of earth imagery into the female Tlaltecuhtli 1 and the male Tlaltecuhtli 2

variants, each of which encompasses themes of both life and death, creation and

destruction. For the Aztecs, life was in a constant state of precarious balance between

dual forces, and the assortment of rules and emphasis on moderation that emerged in

order to maintain this equilibrium is mirrored in the highly controlled iconography of

Tlaltecuhtli, whose forms and variations are so strictly regulated.

The fundamental importance of the earth is reinforced by the Templo Mayor, in

whose form the Aztecs not only joined the two forces of Tlaloc and Huitzilopochtli,

agriculture and war, but also the triadic principle of water, sun, and earth. As Broda

states, “We may speak of a natural philosophy based on the dialectical conception of
 122

the necessary harmony between the earth, the sky, and the water (the sea) that was

guaranteed by ritual” (1987:106). In this triadic structure, Tlaltecuhtli was, at once, the

earth, the city of Tenochtitlan, and the platform of the Templo Mayor who received

the blood and bodies of the victims thrown down the twin temple steps. As producer

of agricultural abundance as well as the partial reason for war and sacrifice,

Tlaltecuhtli represented both the rainy and the dry seasons, both male and female, a

fact that may explain her place as the platform that sustains the temples of both

Huitzilopochtli and Tlaloc. Though the principle of duality is certainly crucial in our

decipherment of the Aztec way of life, understanding the role of Tlaltecuhtli in the

Templo Mayor encourages us to search for the simultaneous and complementary

numeric structures by which the Aztecs organized their universe. It also makes the

invisible visible, bringing to light an entity that we so often take for granted. For the

Aztecs, the earth was a fundamental and omnipresent force of nature, beneath and

behind everything, a living, vibrant, and powerful entity who played a crucial role in

the stability of the cosmos.

Understanding the ways in which the earth was viewed by the Aztecs decodes

the numerous ways in which the earth was represented. Tlaltecuhtli 1a, with her wide

open maw, seems to have emphasized the earth as consumer of the dead, though

frontal images of the deity balance the symbolism of death with that of birth. The head

of Tlaltecuhtli 1b, in contrast, associates these figures with the cihuateteo and

tzitzimime, women dead in childbirth and astral figures connected with both healing

and the end of the world. Dorsal images of Tlaltecuhtli 1a and 1b, for their part, appear
 123

to have stressed the earth as a defeated warrior and sacrificial victim, while the 1a

“knife variant” emphasizes the earth’s role in producing the tools of sacrifice, namely

flint and obsidian. Tlaltecuhtli 2, though seemingly associated with peaceful themes of

agriculture and rain, was also a dual figure, linked to the ballgame and the regalia of

warriors. Regardless of their variation and strict iconographic separation, then,

Tlaltecuhtli 1 and 2 both emphasized themes of the earth’s duality, its role as both

great producer and destroyer, as agent of beginnings and endings.

6.2 Reconciling Identities: the Two Faces of the Earth

The question remains: why develop two Tlaltecuhtli forms that are seemingly

interchangeable, especially two forms that vary so extremely from one another?

Tlaltecuhtli 1 and 2 variants occupy the same positions beneath the same sculptural

forms. They are both only found in two-dimensional representations and they both

depict figures in a straight-on view in the splayed hocker position. Details of the

figures, however, including their facial markings and attributes, make them completely

distinct from one another. Those of Tlaltecuhtli 1 are drawn from Aztec sources and

those of Tlaltecuhtli 2 are, for the most part derived from outside cultures. Why did

the Aztecs view their earth in two such different ways?

The answer, I believe, lies in the multiple ethnic identity of the Aztecs. On the

one hand they were conquerors, Chichimec invaders that believed they possessed the

unique right to rule the Valley of Mexico and its surrounds. On the other hand, they

legitimated their reign by forging ancestral connections to the great civilizations of the

past. Such battles of identity are not unknown in history. Even the Spanish in the New
 124

World fought, on the one hand, for independence from Spain by appropriating the

unique cultural history of the indigenous population, and, on the other, for cultural

dominance and control in Mexico by emphasizing their superior Spanish descent. If

once sees the Aztecs as a cultural group struggling to reconcile the disparate parts of

their personal identity, it is easy to see why a dual earth would have arisen in their

cosmology.

Tlaltecuhtli 1 recalls the Mexica past, the mythology of the migration south from

their northern barbaric origins. The Mexica migration myth, for instance, emphasizes

the constant battle between male and female powers. Huitzilopochtli, avatar of the sun,

kills Coyolxauhqui not once, but twice, at the hill of Coatepec, the first time at the

moment of his birth from Coatlicue and the second time during the Mexica migration,

eating her heart and decapitating her over the ballcourt at midnight. The Aztec

civilization was thus born from a cosmic battle between male and female forces (see

Klein 1988, 1993, 1994). This may explain the imagery of war seen on Tlaltecuhtli 1

images, the emphasis of Tlaltecuhtli 1b on decapitation and that of dorsal Tlaltecuhtli

1a and 1b images—with their paper banners and coyote tail wristlets—on themes of

warfare and defeat. The coyote tail itself may have been envisioned as a link between

the Aztecs and their Chichimec past, recalling the time when they dressed in the hides

of animals, especially coyote fur, and survived through hunting, a practice considered

analogous to warfare and the taking of captives. The insatiable Tlaltecuhtli 1a, with

her jaws open to receive the blood of sacrifice and the bodies of the dead, may also
 125

have been utilized either in response to or in order to justify the increasing emphasis

and reliance of the Aztec Empire on military expansion and human sacrifice.

Tlaltecuhtli 2, on the other hand, represents a male earth connected to the great

civilizations that preceded the Aztecs, especially Teotihuacan, birthplace of the Fifth

Sun, and the Gulf Coast, associated with luxuriant green and the fertilizing breath of

Ehecatl-Quetzalcoatl. Tlaltecuhtli 2 shows the mouthpiece and headdress

characteristic of the Teotihuacan Storm God, perhaps evoking the earth of the

ancestors, before there was a separation between rain and earth, Tlaloc and

Tlaltecuhtli. The fact that “…Tlaloc was also a god of dynastic succession, an old god

related to ancestors and to past cosmic ages or ‘suns’” (Broda 1987:83) further

highlights this link of Tlaltecuhtli 2 to ancestral powers. Interestingly, although

Tlaltecuhtli 2 references the past and embodies the divine power of the old gods of

earth and water, the form of this deity is not seen before the Late Postclassic reliefs of

Tenochtitlan. Tlaltecuhtli 2, therefore, represents not a survival of old representations

of the earth, but instead a purely Aztec interpretation of what the old earth may have

looked like.

Waves seen behind one partial image of Tlaltecuhtli 2 (Figure 7b) may show that

he was seen as the earth floating in the primordial sea. The earth, after all, was called

cemanahuac, “the place surrounded by water,” in Nahuatl (Broda 1983:222, 323)

“…and was conceived of as a disk or a huge alligator (cipactli) floating on the waters.

These waters proceeded from Tlalocan, the paradise of the rain god…” (Broda

1987:101). Two images of Tlaltecuhtli 2 (and possibly a third from beneath the
 126

Yollolicue statue) show the date One Rabbit above the headdress of the god, a clear

allusion to the creation of the world, which was believed to have occurred on One

Rabbit (Bierhorst 1992:25). This further supports the interpretation of Tlaltecuhtli 2 as

the earth floating upon the primordial sea. Whatever his other connections, Tlaltecuhtli

2 should be understood as an old god, a god present at the beginnings of the world

when the deities gathered at Teotihuacan and the Fifth Sun was born. Just as

Huitzilopochtli, the new Mexica tribal god, was paired in the Templo Mayor with

Tlaloc, derived from the old Teotihuacan Storm God, Tlaltecuhtli 1, the Mexica tribal

earth, may have been paired with the primordial earth of Tlaltecuhtli 2.

6.3 Much Ado About Nothing? The Importance of Tlaltecuhtli:

The discovery that the earth had two faces reveals that the Aztec struggle to

resolve the contradictions of a multiple ethnic identity were realized in very physical

ways. Tlaltecuhtli imagery represents a delicate balancing act of past and present, of

forging a new identity while at the same time incorporating the ways of the ancestors.

As López Austín states, “…the different concepts of the cosmos came to be mounted

on preceding ones” (1988:87). Tlaltecuhtli 1 may thus be seen as more representative

of subjugation, of the new emphasis on war and sacrifice and the pairing of the female

earth with the solar patron god of the Mexica, Huitzilopochtli. Tlaltecuhtli 2 may be

seen as the other side of the equation, reflecting the dependence of the Aztecs on the

civilizations of the past to legitimate their right to rule.

 127

This compromise between old and new was not a violent readjustment of

religion, but a slower adaptation that attempted, on the one hand, to pacify those

cultures that long antedated that of the Aztecs by retaining their gods, while, on the

other, emphasizing the ways and beliefs of the new state. As López Austín states: “In

general terms, it can be stated that the group in power, rather than encouraging violent

innovations in popular conceptions, tended to develop them, adapting them to varying

situations, giving them new content, reinterpreting them, taking advantage to the

fullest extent of a cultural tradition in order to satisfy without friction and without

injuring popular sentiment the growing requirements of a sociopolitical structure that

was constantly becoming more complex” (1988:410). This building of the present

upon the past was also expressed in the Templo Mayor, whose offerings “…can be

divided into two groups: those that the Mexicas took from the renowned cultural

tradition of the Toltecs and those that they themselves added” (Matos Moctezuma

1987:55). It is important to recall the fact that all Tlaltecuhtli 2 images face

downward, unlike Tlaltecuhtli 1 who is seen in both frontal and dorsal poses. Though

this may be interpreted as symbolizing the defeat by the Mexica of the old gods of the

past, it may also be understood as the attempt of the Aztecs to situate themselves upon

the back of the ancestral earth, building upon the achievements and life-ways of their

predecessors.

The combination of two different earths in Aztec iconography also brings to light

the insecurity of a cultural group attempting to forge a new Empire. As Carrasco states

in his discussion of the Templo Mayor, “Plagued by a sense of illegitimacy and

 128

cultural inferiority, the Aztecs made shrewd and strenuous efforts to encapsulate the

sanctified traditions of the past into their shrine” (1987:150). Though they brought

with them a new religious structure based on human sacrifice and extravagant public

ceremonies, the Aztecs were not convinced that these new ways could justifiably

replace the old. This inferiority complex may be witnessed in the lack of variety in

Tlaltecuhtli 2 images when opposed to the great variation of forms seen in Tlaltecuhtli

1. Despite its great achievements, the Aztec Empire was still a fledgling civilization.

Tlaltecuhtli reliefs capture the struggle of this new empire between preservation of the

past in Tlaltecuhtli 2 (whose representations were limited to extremely prescribed

forms) and the process of self-invention on the part of the Aztecs who, at the time of

the Conquest, may still have been seeking the true face of their Mexica earth,

Tlaltecuhtli 1, in stone. López Austín describes this identity crisis: “…the instability of

Mexica dominion brought with it self-doubt as to the legitimacy of their claim to be

heirs of the god Quetzalcoatl… the religious policy of the Mexicans seemed to

vacillate between claiming to be Quetzalcoatl’s sons and initiating a new era under the

patronage of the god Huitzilopochtli. They decided on the latter option, but they

themselves doubted up to the last moment the legitimacy of their rise to

predominance” (1988:86). When the Spanish arrived, it was seen by the Aztecs as

proof of their mistake in trying to forge a new empire governed by the god

Huitzilopochtli (Ibid.). This loss of faith in the new religion may explain why

Tlaltecuhtli 2, symbol of the old gods and preceding civilizations, is the Tlaltecuhtli
 129

variant that was most often reworked in Colonial times, preserved in millstones and

column bases in a final, perhaps desperate, return to the ways of the past.

Understanding the differences between these two Tlaltecuhtli variants diversifies

our view of the Aztecs and generates a more nuanced view of the way in which the

Aztecs envisioned not only their physical world, but their place in history. So often

seen as warriors, conquerors, and the rulers of a great empire, the Aztecs are often

assumed to have been confident, self-assured, and completely convinced of their right

to reign over central Mexico and its environs. The pairing of their own Mexica earth

with an image believed to represent the earth of the great preceding civilizations,

however, indicates instead that the Aztecs were a people taking the first steps toward

establishing their own identity. Because so much of what we hold to be Aztec culture

and religion arose as a result of the adoption and adaptation of neighboring cultures’

ideological and religious systems, it is often difficult to isolate forms and ideas that are

purely Aztec. Fortunately, representations of Tlaltecuhtli—imagery never seen outside

of the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan— provide a window into how these people, as

newcomers and conquerors, situated themselves in time and space. Through

Tlaltecuhtli imagery, we are confronted with a an almost poignant view of the Aztecs

at the dawn of their civilization, seeking to reconcile and resolve the disparate parts of

their identities and selves into a single religious and iconographic system.

6.4 Conclusion

The iconography of Tlaltecuhtli is rich with metaphors of duality and life cycles,

a reflection of general Aztec philosophies of the balance of opposing phenomena.

 130

Without understanding this visual imagery, our understanding of the Aztec world

becomes limited, narrowed down to exclude the terrestrial realm. This thesis is meant

as a beginning. I have laid out the groundwork by establishing parameters and

definitions by which future scholars may be guided through the often confusing world

of the earth and earth deities. By combining strict iconographic analysis with well-

supported interpretation, I have tried to balance the impartial illusion of the

Structuralist approach with a degree of subjective observation. Any flaws and

omissions will hopefully be rectified by subsequent research.

Overall, this thesis serves as a reminder that a greater understanding of the

Aztecs can be reached through the close observation of their art and iconography.

Though the discovery that the Aztecs visualized their earth in two very different ways

reinforces the importance of dual principles in the Aztec worldview, it also informs us

as to the deeper and more personal themes of Aztec self-identity. Tlaltecuhtli brings to

very physical life the struggle of the birth of an Empire, the insecurity of a people,

once deemed barbarians, who suddenly found themselves creators and custodians of

one of the greatest New World civilizations. Aztec art is a vessel of ideology, but it is

also a locus for the expression of personal identity. In their iconography, the Aztecs

sought to bring order to a confusing and contradictory world. In representations of the

earth, this world is given a very physical reality. The imagery of Tlaltecuhtli should,

therefore, be utilized as a witness, speaking for the ways in which the Aztecs situated

themselves in their world, locating themselves in space and time.

 Appendix 1:
Features Shown by Tlaltecuhtli Variants
Head Clawed Skulls Skull Chalchihuitl/ Coyote Banners on Central Skulls Masks Loin- Insects
hands/ in feet/ back ollin sign on tails on legs kan tied on on cloth in hair
feet hands apron abdomen wrists shield knees/ joints
elbows
Jaw Upside- Upright Plain With
down spots
1a X O O X O O X O O O O O X O O
frontal
1a X O O X O X O X X O O O X O S
dorsal
1a X O O X O X O O O O O X S O O
flint
1b O X O X X X O X O X O S X O S
2 O O X O* X O O O O O X X O X O
X= Always
S= Sometimes
O= Never
* Tlaltecuhtli 2 is shown with taloned thumbs only.
 D!
B!
C!
A!
E!
Figure 1: Tlaltecuhtli 1a (dorsal views): a) Base of broken goddess (photo by author); b) Seat of Teocalli of Moctezuma (Townsend
1979:f.22a); c) Offering box marked with One Cipactli on the interior (Taube 1993:36); d) Inscription from a Chiapa de Corzo bone (Von
Winning 1968:f.396/397); e) Side of Stone of Four Creations (Nicholson and Quiñones Keber 1983:42).!
D!
A! B! C!
Figure 2: Tlaltecuhtli 1a (frontal views): a) Base of the Bilimek pulque vessel (Pasztory 1983:pl.282); b) Relief with reconstructed head showing
birth of Tezcatlipoca (Klein 1976:f.5); c) Relief panel (Pasztory 1983:pl.98); d) Relief panel fragment (Nicholson 1967:f.5).!
 A! B! C! D!
E! F! G!
Figure 3: Tlaltecuhtli 1a Knife Variant : a) Base of feathered serpent (Pasztory 1983:pl.216); b) Cuauhxicalli (Alcina Franch, et al. 1992:307);"
c) Possible base of feathered serpent (Ibid.:f.171); d) Cuauhxicalli (Ibid.:f.53); e) Cuauhxicalli (Pasztory 1983:Colorplate 48); f) Object unknown
(Gutiérrez Solana 1983:f.205); g) Cuauhxicalli (Alcina Franch, et al. 1992:306).!
 B! C!
A!
D! E!
Figure 4: Tlaltecuhtli 1b: a) Relief panel (photo by author); b) Underside of unknown object (Gutiérrez Solana 1983:f.174); c) Underside of Spanish
column base (Ibid.:f.175); d) Base of offertory vessel (Pasztory 1983:pl.37); e) Object unknown (Von Winning 1968:f.389). !
 A!
D!
C!
E!
B!
Figure 5: Tlaltecuhtli 1b (continued): a) Box fragment (Peterson 1983:f.13); b) Alabaster relief panel (Matos Moctezuma 1997:f.21); c) Bottom of
box (Baquedano 1984:f.59); d) Base of Stuttgart statuette (Klein 1976:f.7); e) Fragment from base of feathered serpent (Townsend 1979:29).!
 B!
C!
A!
D! E!
!
Figure 6: Tlaltecuhtli 2: a) Base of Coatlique (photo by author); b) Base of Yollotlicue (Nicholson 1967:f.8); c) Base of plumed serpent (Pasztory
1983:pl.117); d) Cube base (Solís 2004:f.87); e) Possible cube base (Alcina Franch, et al. 1992:f.95).
 A! B! C!
D! E! F!
Figure 7: Tlaltecuhtli 2 (continued): a) Possible cube base (Nicholson and Quiñones Keber 1983:58); b) Recarved millstone; c) Fragment from
base of cihuateotl (Batres 1900:f.6); d) Base of Spanish column (photo by author); e) Relief panel fragment (Matos Moctezuma 1997:f.7); "
f) Recarved millstone (photo by author).!
 A! B! C! D E!
!
Figure 8: Back Skulls: a) Stone of Moctezuma (Alcina Franch, et al. 1992:f.XLI); b) Fonds mexicain 20 (Lehman 1966); c) Coatlicue del
Metro (Matos Moctezuma and Solís 2002:f.132); d) Colossal Coatlicue (photo by author); e) Ixcuina (Telleriano Remensis 17v) (Quiñones
Keber 1995:f.17v).
Figure 9: Back of the Teocalli of Moctezuma Figure 10: Coyolxauhqui Stone (Matos Moctezuma
(Townsend 1979:22d)! and Solís 2002 2002:f.10)!
 A! B! C!
D!
Figure 11: Birth Imagery: a) Birth scene of Tlazolteotl (Seler 1963[I]:f.347); b) Birth scene from Borgia (Díaz and Rodgers 1993:pl.31); "
c) Greenstone Tlazolteotl giving birth (Matos Moctezuma and Solís 2002:f.320); d) Maya Birth Vase showing woman giving birth while holding
on to ropes from rafters (Kerr 1994:650).!
A! B! D! E!
C!
Figure 12: Images of Skins and Sacrifice: a) Codex Magliabechiano (Boone 1983); b) Primeros Memoriales (Klein 1988:f.11a); c) Xochiquetzal
seated on skin (Ibid.:f.10b); d) Olmec crocodile skin (Covarrubias 1971:f.21); e) Splayed earth crocodile from Copan Altar T (Maudslay 1974).!
 B! C! A! B!
A! Figure 14: Toad Imagery: a)Tlaltecuhtli relief with
Figure 13: Descending Deities: a) Panel of Itzpapalotl (Seler 1963[II]:f. chalchihuitl symbol (Pasztory 1983:pl.98); b) Abdomen of
267); b) Gold ornament with Coyolxauhqui face (Solís 2004:f.71); c) a toad (Matos Moctezuma and Solís 2002:f.59).!
Huastec goddess with descending monster headdress (Ibid.f.178).!
Fig.15: Nanahuatzin Born out of the Joints of a Skeletal God
(Díaz and Rodgers 1993:pl.42).!
 A! B! C!
Figure 16: Ñuju Imagery: a) Ñuju figure piercing day sign (Díaz and Rodgers 1993:pl.30); b) Wind serpent with ñuju-faced stone in mouth (Ibid:pl.
29); c) Wind serpent with nuju-faced wood in mouth (Ibid.).!
A! B!
Figure 17: Tzitzimime Depictions: a) Tudela 46r (Klein 2000:1b); b) Magliabechiano 76r (Boone 1983:Folio 97r).!
 C!
A! B!
Figure 18: Skirts as Platforms: a) Codex Magliabechiano (Boone 1983:76); b) Aztec platform; c) Aztec cube marked with Venus signs identical to
those of the skirts of Figures 2b and 2c (Matos Moctezuma and Solís 2002:f.136).!
A! B! C! D! E! F!
Figure 19: Codex Depictions of the Jaws of the Earth: a) Codex Vaticanus B; b) Codex Laud 21v; c) Codex Borgia 13 (Díaz and Rodgers
1993:pl.13); d) Codex Fejervary Mayer 40 ; e) Codex Laud 15v; f) CodexBorgia 60 (Díaz and Rodgers 1993:pl.60).!
 A
B
C D
Figure 20: Cave Imagery, Mouths and Wombs: a) Emergence from the monster mouth of Chicomoztoc (Durán 1994:pl.3); b) Emergence
from the womb of Chicomoztoc (Solís 2004:95); c) Death goddess with umbilicus from mouth (Codex Vaticanus B 41); d) Figure entering
cave womb (Nuttall 1975:16).!
 A! B! C!
Figure 21: Tzompantli and Decapitation Imagery: a-b) Back skulls worn by Tlaltecuhtli 1a (Nicholson and Quiñones Keber 1983:42; Taube
1993:36); c) Tzompantli skull rack from Tovar Codex (Solís 2004:143).!
A! B!
Figure 22: Flint Imagery: a) Flint nose and tongue added to skull (Solís 2004:f.73); b) Birth from flint-headed god (note hips as bowl) (Díaz
and Rodgers 1993:pl.32).!
 A! B! C! D!
Figure 23: Skirts and Hips as Bowls, Bowls as Wombs: a) Base of Bilimek Vessel (Pasztory 1983:pl.282); b) Possible Tlaltecuhtli variant with bowl
instead of hips (Seler 1990-[IV]:232, f.47); c) Birth scene from body of cihuateotl showing womb as bowl (Díaz and Rodgers 1993:pl. 47); c) Birth
scene from Borgia 29 (Ibid.:pl.29).!
A! B! C!
Figure 24: Images of Cihuacoatl: a) Magliabechiano 33 (Boone 1983:33); b) Codex Borbonicus (Seler 1963[I]:486a); c) Codex Tudela 27r
(Klein 2000:f.11).!
 A! B! C!
Figure 25: Coyote Tail Imagery; a) Tlaltecuhtli 1b (photo by author); b) Codex Vaticanus B 82 (possible coyote tails dangling from arm); c)
Stela 31 from Tikal showing Teotihuacan-style warrior with jaguar tails (Stone 1989:f.2).!
A! B! C!
Figure 26: The Face of Tlaloc? a) Sacrifice scene of Tonatiuh from Borgia 40 (Note curving ornament over brow) (Díaz and Rodgers 1993:pl.
40); b) Lidded pot (Matos Moctezuma and Solís 2002:f.240); c) Aztec polychrome vase (Ibid.:f.238).!
 A! B! C!
D! E! F!
Figure 27: Teotihuacan Connections: a) Teotihuacan mural with Storm God (Pasztory 1997:f.2.1); b) Detail of Teotihuacan mirror back (Berrin
and Pasztory 1993:f.180); c) Motifs from Teotihuacan (Caso 1966:f.3); d) Net jaguar with central ollin shield (Berlo 1988:f.12); e) Net Jaguar
from Teotihuacan mural (Berrin and Pasztory 1993:f.47); f) Net Jaguar (Paulinyi 2001:f.26).!
 A! B!
C! D!
E! F! G! H!
Figure 28: Gulf Coast Associations: a) Tajín sky god with central shield (Piña Chan and Peña 1999:112); b) Tajín shield with ollin sign (Kampen
1972:59); c) Tajín squatting god with pointed shoes and central shield (Piña Chan and Peña 1999:127); d) Tajín sacrifice scene (note ballplayer
kneeguards) (Kampen 1972:46); e) Tajín gods in hocker position (Piña Chan and Peña 1999:123); f) Descending Tajín god (Ibid.); "
g) Shell gorget from Huastec area (Beyer 1933:pl.11); h) Aztec cuahxicalli with Tajín -style skulls (Matos Moctezuma and Solís 2002:f.151). !
 A! B! C!
Figure 29: Maya Connections: a-b) Ballcourt markers 2 and 1 from Tenam Rosario (Fox 1993:f.3, f.2);"
c) Las Higueras solar figure (Gendrop 1971:f.123).!
B!
A!
Figure 30: The Earth and the Ballgame: a) Figure dressed in cipactli skin over ballcourt (Díaz and Rodgers 1993:pl.35); b) Ballcourt divided
into four quadrants (Nuttall 1975:2).!
 A! B! C! D!
Figure 31: Some Tlaltecuhtli Variants; a) Tlaltecuhtli 1a head variant (Gutiérrez Solana 1983:f.68); b) Tlaltecuhtli 1a head variant (Ibid: f.22a); "
c) Cipactli (Ibid.:f.33); d) Cipactli (Ibid.:f.18).!
A! B!
Figure 32: Cultural Links: a) Earth image from Mayapan (Taube 1993:70); b) Bird with jawed joints from Chavín culture (Rowe 1977:f.11).!
 A! B! C!
Figure 33: Deity Variant Tlalchitonatiuh: a) Codex Telleriano Remensis (Quiñones Keber 1995:20r); b) Codex Aubin (Seler 1963[I]:f.376); "
c) Codex Borbonicus showing Tlalchitonatiuh in front of Xolotl (Seler 1963[II]:f.270).!
A! B! C!
Figure 34: Deity Variant Tlaloc-Tlaltecuhtli: a) Base of Chac Mool (Pasztory 1983:pl.140); b) Relief panel (Alcina Franch, et al. 1992:53); c)
Statue from Castillo de Teayo (photo by author).!
 A! B!
Figure 35: Additional Tlaltecuhtli Images: a) Relief panel (Gutiérrez Solana 1983.:f.173); b) Relief panel fragment (Seler 1990-[IV]:232, f.47).!
A! B!
Figure 36: Deity Variants: a) Quetzalcoatl (Solís 1998:f.171); b) Itzpapalotl (Seler 1963[II]:f.267).!
 Bibliography

Acosta, José de, ed. 2002. Natural and Moral History of the Indies. Edited by J. E.
Mangan. Durham: Duke University Press. Original edition, 1590.

Aguilera Garcia, Maria del Carmen. 1978. Coyolxauhqui: Ensayo Iconográfico.

México: B.N.A.H.-I.N.A.H.

———. 2001. Coyolxauhqui: the Mexica Milky Way. Lancaster: Labyrinthos.

Alcina Franch, José. 1995. Tláloc y los Tlaloques en los códices del México central.
Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl 25:29-43.

Alcina Franch, José, Miguel León-Portilla, and Eduardo Matos Moctezuma, eds. 1992.
Azteca Mexica. Madrid: Sociedad Estatal Quinto Centenario.

Araujo, Carlos R. Margain. 1945. La Fiesta Azteca de la Cosecha Ochpanistli. Anales

del Instituto Nacional de Antropología 1 (1939-40):157-174.

Arnold, Philip P. 1999. Eating Landscape: Aztec and European Occupation of

Tlalocan. Niwot: University Press of Colorado.

Baez-Jorge, Felix. 2000. Los oficios de las diosas: Dialéctica de la religiosidad

popular en los grupos indios de Mexico. México: Universidad Veracruzana.

Baquedano, Elizabeth. 1984. Aztec Sculpture. London: British Museum Publications.

———. 1988. Aspects of Death Symbolism in Aztec Tlaltecuhtli. In The Symbolism

in the Plastic and Pictorial Representations of Ancient Mexico, edited by J. de
Durand-Forest and M. Eisinger. Bonn: Holos.

———. 1989. Aztec Earth Deities. In Polytheistic Systems, edited by G. Davies.

Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

———. 1990. The Mesoamerican Ballgame: Symbolic Aspects. In Contests, edited by

A. Duff-Cooper. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Baquedano, Elizabeth, and Michel Graulich. 1993. Decapitation among the Aztecs:
Mythology, Agriculture and Politics, and Hunting. Estudios de Cultura
Nahuatl 23:163-178.

Baquedano, Elizabeth, and Clive Orton. 1990. Similarities between sculptures using
Jaccard's coefficient in the study of Aztec Tlaltecuhtli. Papers from the
Institute of Archaeology:16-23.

153
 154

Batres, Leopoldo. 1900. Excavations in Escalerillas Street, City of Mexico. Mexico: J.

Aguilera Vera and Co.

Berlo, Janet Catherine. 1988. Icons and Ideologies at Teotihuacan: The Great Goddess
Reconsidered. In Art, Ideology, and the City of Teotihuacan, edited by J. C.
Berlo. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.

Berrin, Kathleen, and Esther Pasztory, eds. 1993. Teotihuacan: Art from the City of
the Gods. San Francisco: The Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco.

Beyer, Hermann. 1933. Shell Ornament Sets from the Huasteca, Mexico. Studies in
Middle America 5 (4):153-215.

Bierhorst, John, ed. 1992. Codex Chimalpopoca: the text in Nahuatl with a glossary
and grammatical notes. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Bonifaz Nuño, Rubén. 1986. Imagen de Tláloc: Hipótesis Iconográfica y Textual.

México: Universidad Autónoma de México.

Boone, Elizabeth H. 1983. The Codex Magliabechiano and the Lost Prototype of the
Magliabechiano Group: Commentary and Facsimile. Los Angeles: University
of California Press.

———. 1999. The "Coatlicues" at the Templo Mayor. Ancient Mesoamerica 10:189-
206.

Broda, Johanna. 1983. The Provenience of the Offerings: Tribute and Cosmovision. In
The Aztec Templo Mayor, edited by E. H. Boone. Washington, D.C.:
Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.

———. 1987. Templo Mayor as Ritual Space. In The Great Temple of Tenochtitlan:
Center and Periphery in the Aztec World, edited by Johanna Broda, D.
Carrasco and E. Matos Moctezuma. Berkley: University of California Press.

Brundage, Burr Cartwright. 1979. The Fifth Sun: Aztec Gods, Aztec World. Austin:
University of Texas Press.

Carrasco, David. 1987. Myth, Cosmic Terror, and the Templo Mayor. In The Great
Temple of Tenochtitlan: Center and Periphery in the Aztec World, edited by
Johanna Broda, D. Carrasco and E. Matos Moctezuma. Los Angeles:
University of California Press.

———. 1990. Religions of Mesoamerica: Cosmovision and Ceremonial Centers. San

Francisco: Harper and Row.
 155

Carrasco, David, and Scott Sessions. 1998. Daily Life of the Aztecs: People of the Sun
and Earth. Westport: Greenwood Press.

Carrera, Magali Marie. 1979. The Representation of Women in Aztec-Mexica

Sculpture. Dissertation, Columbia University, New York.

Caso, Alfonso. 1927. El Teocalli de la Guerra Sagrada: Descripción y Estudio del

Monolito Encontrado en los Cimientos del Palacio Nacional. México: Talleras
Gráficos de la Nación.

———. 1945. La Religión de los Aztecas. México: Secretaria de Educación Pública.

———. 1966. Dioses y Signos Teotihuacanos. In Teotihuacan: Onceava Mesa

Redonda. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología.

———. 1970. The Aztecs: People of the Sun. Translated by L. Dunham. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press.

Codex Laud (Ms. Laud Misc. 678) Bodleian Library Oxford. 1966. Edited by F. Sauer
and J. Stummvoll, Codices Selecti XI. Graz: Akademische Druck- und
Verlagsanstalt.

Codice Fejervary-Mayer. 1994. Codices Mexicanos. Mexico and Austria: Fondo de

Cultura Economica and Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt.

Codice Vaticano B.3773. 1993. Codices Mexicanos. Mexico and Austria: Fondo de
Cultura Economica and Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt.

Covarrubias, Miguel. 1971. Indian Art of Mexico and Central America. 3 ed. New
York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Diaz del Castillo, Bernal. 1927. The True History of The Conquest of Mexico.
Translated by M. Keatinge. Vol. I. New York: Robert M. McBride and
Company.

Diaz, Gisele, and Alan Rodgers, eds. 1993. The Codex Borgia: A Full-Color
Restoration of the Ancient Mexican Manuscript. New York: Dover
Publications, Inc.

Durán, Fray Diego. 1971. Book of the Gods and Rites and the Ancient Calendar.
Translated by F. Horcasitas and D. Heyden. Edited by F. Horcasitas and D.
Heyden. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

———. 1994. History of the Indies of New Spain. Translated by D. Heyden. Edited by
D. Heyden. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
 156

Fox, John Gerard. 1993. The Ballcourt Markers of Tenam Rosario, Chiapas, Mexico.
Ancient Mesoamerica 4:55-64.

Fradcourt, Ariane. 1993. New Insights on the Interpretation of the Aztec Calendar
Stone. In The Symbolism in the Plastic and Pictorial Representations of
Ancient Mexico, edited by J. de Durand-Forest and M. Eisinger. Bonn: Holos.

Furst, Peter T. 1972. Symbolism and Psychopharmacology: the Toad as Earth Mother
in Indian America. In Religión en Mesoamérica. XII Mesa Redonda., edited by
J. L. King and N. C. Tejero. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología.

Garibay, Angel Ma. 1970. Llave de Nahuatl: Coleccion de trozos clásicos, con
gramática y vocabulario, para utilidad de los principiantes. 3 ed. México:
Editorial Porrua, S.A.

———, ed. 1973. Teogonía e Historia de los Mexicanos: Tres Opúsculos del Siglo
XVI. México: Editorial Porrua, S.A.

Gendrop, Paul. 1971. Las Higueras y los Murals Totonacas. Artes de Mexico 18
(144):48-53.

Gillespie, Susan. 1989. The Aztec Kings: The Construction of Rulership in Mexico
History. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

———. 1991. Ballgames and Boundaries. In The Mesoamerican Ballgame, edited by

V. L. Scarborough and D. R. Wilcox. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Girard, Rafael. 1966. Los Mayas: su civilización, su historia, sus vinculaciones

continentales. México: Libro Mex.

González Torres, Yolotl. 1985. El Sacrificio Humano Entre Los Mexicas. Mexico:
Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Graulich, Michel. 1983. Myths of Paradise Lost in Pre-Hispanic Central Mexico.

Current Anthropology 24 (5):575-588.

———. 1988. Double Immolations in Ancient Mexican Sacrificial Ritual. History of

Religions 27 (4):393-404.

———. 1991. Les grandes statues azteques dites de Coatlique et de Yollotlicue. In

Cultures et sociétés Andes et Méso-Amérique: Mélanges en hommage à Pierre
Duviols, edited by R. Thiercelin. Provence: Universite de Provence.

———. 1997. Myths of Ancient Mexico. Translated by B. Ortiz de Montellano and T.

Ortiz de Montellano. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
 157

Guiteras-Holmes, Calixta. 1961. Perils of the Soul: The World View of a Tzotzil
Indian. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc.

Gutiérrez Solana, Nelly. 1983. Objetos Ceremoniales en Piedra de la Cultura Mexica.

México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

———. 1990. Relieve del Templo Mayor con Tláloc Tlaltecuhtli y Tláloc. Anales del
Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas 61:15-35.

Hellmuth, Nicholas M. 1975. The Escuintla Hoards: Teotihuacan Art in Guatemala. In

F.L.A.A.R. Progress Reports, Vol.1, No.2.

———. 1978. Teotihuacan Art in the Escuintla, Guatemala, Region. In Middle

Classic Mesoamerica: a.d. 400-700, edited by E. Pasztory. New York:
Columbia University Press.

Heyden, Doris. 1971. Comentarios sobre la Coatlicue recuperada durante las

excavaciones realizadas para la construcción del Metro. Anales del Instituto
Nacional de Antropología e Historia 50:153-170.

———. 1974. La diosa madre: Itzpapalotl. Boletín, Instituto Nacional de

Antropología e Historia 11 (Epoca II):3-14.

———. 1976. Caves, Gods, and Myths: World-view and Planning in Teotihuacan. In
Mesoamerican Sites and World-Views, edited by E. P. Benson. Washington,
D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections.

Houston, Stephen, and David Stuart. 1996. Of gods, glyphs, and kings: divinity and
rulership among the Classic Maya. Antiquity 70 (268):289-312.

Joyce, Rosemary A. 2000. Gender and Power in Prehispanic Mesoamerica. Austin:

University of Texas Press.

Kampen, Michael Edwin. 1972. The Sculptures of El Tajín, Veracruz, Mexico.

Gainesville: University of Florida Press.

Kerr, Justin. 1994. The Maya Vase Book: a corpus of rollout photographs of Maya
vases. Vol. 4. New York: Kerr Associates.

Klein, Cecilia. 1973. Post-Classic Mexican Death Imagery as a Sign of Cyclic

Completion. In Death and the Afterlife in Pre-Columbian America, edited by
E. P. Benson. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
Collections.

———. 1976. The Face of the Earth: frontality in two-dimensional Mesoamerican

art. New York: Garland Publishers.
 158

———. 1977. The Identity of the Central Deity on the Aztec Calendar Stone. In Pre-
Columbian Art History, edited by A. Cordy-Collins and J. Stern. Palo Alto:
Peek Publications.

———. 1980. Who was Tlaloc? Journal of Latin American Lore 6 (2):155-204.

———. 1988. Rethinking Cihuacoatl: Aztec Political Imagery of the Conquered

Woman. In Smoke and Mist: Mesoamerican Studies in Memory of Thelma D.
Sullivan, edited by J. K. Josserand and K. Dakin. Oxford: B.A.R.

———. 1993. The Shield Woman: Resolution of an Aztec Gender Paradox. In

Current Topics in Aztec Studies, Essays in Honor of Dr. H.B. Nicholson, edited
by A. Cordy-Collins and D. Sharon. San Diego: San Diego Museum of Man.

———. 1994. Fighting with Femininity: Gender and War in Aztec Mexico. Estudios
de Cultura Nahuatl 24:219-253.

———. 2000. The Devil and the Skirt: An iconographic inquiry into the pre-Hispanic
nature of the tzitzimime. Ancient Mesoamerica 11:1-26.

———, ed. 2001. Gender in Prehispanic America. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton

Oaks Research Library and Collections.

Koontz, Rex Ashley. 1994. The iconography of El Tajín, Veracruz, Mexico.

Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Austin.

Krickeberg, Walter. 1961. Las Antiguas Culturas Mexicanas. Translated by S. Garst

and J. Reuter. 2 ed. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Economica.

Kubler, George. 1967. The Iconography of the Art of Teotihuacan, Studies in Pre-
Columbian Art and Archaeology, no.4. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks
Trustees for Harvard University.

Lehman, Walter. 1966. Las cinco mujeres de oeste muertas en el parto y los cinco
dioses del sur en la mitología mexicana. In Tradicciones Mesoamericanistas 1.
México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología.

León-Portilla, Miguel. 1963. Aztec Thought and Culture: A Study of the Ancient
Nahuatl Mind. Translated by J. E. Davis, Civilization of the American Indian
Series. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

López Austín, Alfredo. 1988. The Human Body and Ideology, Concepts of the Ancient
Nahuas. Translated by T. Ortiz de Montellano and B. Ortiz de Montellano.
Vol. I. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
 159

———. 1990. The Myths of the Opossum. Translated by B. Ortiz de Montellano and
T. Ortiz de Montellano. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

López Luján, Leonardo. 1994. The Offerings of the Templo Mayor of Tenochtitlan.
Translated by B. Ortiz de Montellano and T. Ortiz de Montellano. Niwot:
University Press of Colorado.

Lupo, Alessandro. 1995. La Tierra nos escucha: la cosmología de los nahuas a través
de las súplicas rituales. Mexico: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes:
Instituto Nacional Indigenista.

Madsen, William. 1960. The Virgin's Children: Life in an Aztec Village Today.
Austin: University of Texas Press.

Matos Moctezuma, Eduardo. 1983. Symbolism of the Templo Mayor. In The Aztec
Templo Mayor, edited by E. H. Boone. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks
Research Library and Collection.

———. 1984. The Templo Mayor of Tenochtitlan. In Ritual Human Sacrifice in

Mesoamerica, edited by E. H. Boone. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks
Research Library and Collection.

———. 1987. The Templo Mayor of Tenochtitlan: History and Interpretation. In The
Great Temple of Tenochtitlan: Center and Periphery in the Aztec World.
Berkley: University of California Press.

———. 1991. Las Seis Coyolxauhqui: Variaciones Sobre un Mismo Tema. Estudios
de Cultura Nahuatl 21:2-29.

———. 1995. Life and Death in the Templo Mayor. Translated by B. Ortiz de
Montellano and T. Ortiz de Montellano. Niwot: University Press of Colorado.

———. 1997. Tlaltecuhtli: Señor de la Tierra. Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl 27:15-40.

Matos Moctezuma, Eduardo, and Felipe Solís. 2002. Aztecs. London: Royal Academy
of Arts.

Mendieta, Gerónimo de. 1945. Historia Eclesiástica Indiana; Obra escrita a fines del
siglo XVI. Vol. 1. Mexico: Editorial Salvador Chavez Hayhoe.

Milbrath, Susan. 1988. Birth Images in Mixteca-Puebla Art. In The Role of Gender in
Precolumbian Art and Architecture, edited by V. E. Miller. Lanham:
University Press of America.

———. 1995. Gender and Roles of Lunar Deities in Postclassic Central Mexico and
Their Correlations with the Maya Area. Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl 25:45-93.
 160

Miller, Mary, and Karl Taube. 1993. An Illustrated Dictionary of the Gods and
Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya. London: Thames and Hudson.

Motolinía, Toribio. 1970. Memoriales a Historia de los Indios de la Nueva España.

Vol. 240. Madrid: Atlas.

Nicholson, Henry B. 1954. The Birth of the Smoking Mirror. Archaeology 7 (3):164-
170.

———. 1967. A Fragment of an Aztec Relief Carving of the Earth Monster. Journal
de la Société des Americanistes 56 (1):81-89.

———. 1971. Religion in Pre-Hispanic Central Mexico. Handbook of Middle

American Indians 10:395-446.

———. 1972. The Iconography of Aztec Period Representations of the Earth

Monster: Tlaltecuhtli. In Religión en Mesoamérica. XII Mesa Redonda, edited
by J. L. King and N. C. Tejero. Mexico: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologia.

———. 1993. The Problem of the Identification of the Central Image of the "Aztec
Calendar Stone". In Current Topics in Aztec Studies, Essays in Honor of Dr.
H.B. Nicholson, edited by A. Cordy-Collins and D. Sharon. San Diego: San
Diego Museum of Man.

Nicholson, Henry B., and Eloise Quinones Keber. 1983. Art of Aztec Mexico:
Treasures of Tenochtitlan. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art.

Nuttall, Zelia. 1901. The Fundamental Principles of Old and New World Civilizations:
a comparative research based on a study of the ancient Mexican religious,
sociological, and calendrical systems, Peabody Museum Papers II.
Cambridge: Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology.

———, ed. 1975. The Codex Nuttall: A Picture Manuscript from Ancient Mexico; The
Peabody Museum Facsimile Edited by Zelia Nuttall. New York: Dover.
Original edition, 1902.

Pasztory, Esther. 1972. The Gods of Teotihuacan: a Synthetic Approach in

Teotihuacan Iconography. In Atti del XL Congresso Internazionale degli
Americanisti.

———. 1974. The Iconography of the Teotihuacan Tlaloc, Studies in Pre-Columbian

Art and Architecture, no.15. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Trustees for
Harvard University.

———. 1983. Aztec Art. New York: Henry A. Abrams.

 161

———. 1988. The Aztec Tlaloc: God of Antiquity. In Smoke and Mist:
Mesoamerican Studies in Memory of Thelma D. Sullivan, edited by J. K.
Josserand and K. Dakin. Oxford: B.A.R.

———. 1997. Teotihuacan: An Experiment in Living. Norman: University of

Oklahoma Press.

Paulinyi, Zoltán. 2001. Los Señores con Tocado de Borlas: un estudio sobre el estado
teotihuacano. Ancient Mesoamerica 12 (1):1-30.

Peterson, Jeanette Farrot. 1983. Sacrificial Earth: The Iconography and Function of
Malinalli Grass in Aztec Culture. In Flora and Fauna Imagery in
Precolumbian Cultures: Iconography and Function, edited by N. Hammond.
Oxford: B.A.R.

Piña Chán, Beatríz Barba de, ed. 1998-. Iconografia Mexicana. Mexico: Instituto
Nacional de Antropologia e Historia.

Piña Chán, Roman, and Patricia Castillo Peña. 1999. Tajín: La ciudad del dios
Huracán. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Proskouriakoff, Tatiana. 1954. Varieties of Classic Central Veracruz Sculpture.

Contributions to American Anthropology and History 12 (58):61-94.

———. 1968. The Jog and the Jaguar Signs in Maya Writing. American Antiquity 33
(2):247-251.

Quezada, Noemi. 1977. Creencias Tradicionales Sobre Embarazo y Parto. Anales de

Antropología 14:307-326.

Quinones Keber, Eloise. 1995. Codex Telleriano-Remensis: Ritual, Divination, and

History in a Pictorial Aztec Manuscript. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Robicsek, Francis, and Donald M. Hales. 1984. Maya Heart Sacrifice: Cultural
Perspective and Surgical Technique. In Ritual Human Sacrifice in
Mesoamerica, edited by E. H. Boone. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks
Research Library and Collection.

Rowe, John Howland. 1977. Form and Meaning in Chavín Art. In Pre-Columbian Art
History: Selected Readings, edited by A. Cordy-Collins and J. Stern. Palo
Alto: Peek Publications.

Ruiz de Alarcón, Hernando. 1984. Treatise on the Heathen Superstitions That Today
Live Among the Indians Native to This New Spain, 1629. Translated by J. R.
Andrews and R. Hassig. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
 162

Sahagún, Fray Bernadino de. 1950-1982. Florentine Codex: General History of the
Things of New Spain. Edited by A. J. O. Anderson and C. E. Dibble. 12 vols.
Santa Fe: School of American Research.

———. 1958. Veinte Himnos Sacros de los Nahuas; Los recogio de los nativos F.
Bernadino de Sahagun, Franciscano. Translated by A. M. Garibay, Fuentes
Indígenas de la Cultura Nahuatl, Informantes de Sahagun, 2. México:
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

———. 1997. Primeros Memoriales. Translated by T. D. Sullivan. Edited by T. D.

Sullivan and H. B. Nicholson. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Sandstrom, Alan R. 1991. Corn is Our Blood: Culture and Ethnic Identity in a
Contemporary Aztec Indian Village. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Schaefer, Stacy. 1989. The Loom and Time in the Huichol World. Journal of Latin
American Lore 15 (2):179-194.

Schele, Linda, and Mary Miller. 1986. The Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual in
Maya Art. New York: George Braziller.

Seler, Eduard. 1963. Commentarios al Codice Borgia. Translated by M. Frenk.

México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

———. 1990-. Collected Works in Mesoamerican linguistics and archaeology. Edited

by J. E. S. Thompson and F. B. Richardson. 2 ed. 6 vols. Culver City:
Labyrinthos.

Shelton, Anthony. 1989. Preliminary Notes on some Structural Parallels in the

Symbolic and Relational Classifications of Nahuatl and Huichol Deities. In
Polytheistic Systems, edited by G. Davies. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.

Simeon, Remi. 1977. Diccionario de la lengua Nahuatl o mexicana. Translated by J.

Oliva de Coll. México: Siglo Veintiuno.

Solís, Felipe. 1998. Tesoros Artísticos del Museo Nacional de Antropología. México:
Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

———, ed. 2004. The Aztec Empire. New York: Guggenheim Museum Publications.

Stone, Andrea. 1989. Disconnection, Foreign Insignia, and Political Expansion:

Teotihuacan and the Warrior Stelae of Piedras Negras. In Mesoamerica after
the decline of Teotihuacan, A.D. 700-900, edited by R. A. Diehl, Janet
Catherine Berlo. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
Collection.
 163

Sullivan, Thelma D. 1972. Tlaloc: A new etymological interpretation of the God's

name and what it reveals of his essence and nature. In Atti del XL Congresso
Internazionale Degli Americanisti: Tilgher.

———. 1982. Tlazolteotl-Ixcuina: The Great Spinner and Weaver. In The Art and
Iconography of Late Post-Classic Central Mexico, edited by E. H. Boone.
Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Trustees for Harvard University.

Taube, Karl A. 1983. The Teotihuacan Spider Woman. Journal of Latin American
Lore 9 (2):107-189.

———. 1986. The Teotihuacan Cave of Origin. RES 12:51-82.

———. 1992. The Iconography of Mirrors at Teotihuacan. In Art, Ideology, and the
City of Teotihuacan, edited by J. C. Berlo. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton
Oaks.

———. 1993. Aztec and Maya Myths. Austin: University of Texas Press.

———. 1993. The Bilimek Pulque Vessel: Starlore, Calendrics, and Cosmology in
Late Postclassic Central Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 4:1-15.

———. 1998. The Mirrors of Offerings 1 and 2 of Sala 2 in the Palacio Quemado at
Tula: an Iconographic Interpretation.

———. 2004. Aztec Religion: Creation, Sacrifice, and Renewal. In The Aztec Empire,
edited by F. Solís. New York: Guggenheim Museum Publications.

Tezózomoc, Hernando Alvarado. 1975. Crónica Mexicanayotl. Translated by A. Leon.

México: Universitaria.

———. 1987. Crónica Mexicana. 4 ed. México: Editorial Porrua, S.A.

Thompson, J. Eric S. 1943. Representations of Tlalchitonatiuh at Chichen Itza,

Yucatan, and at Baul, Escuintla. Notes on Middle American Archaeology and
Ethnology 1 (19):117-121.

———. 1960. Maya Hieroglyphic Writing: An Introduction. Norman: University of

Oklahoma Press.

———. 1970. Maya History and Religion. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Townsend, Richard F. 1979. State and Cosmos in the Art of Tenochtitlan, Studies in
Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology, no.20. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton
Oaks Trustees for Harvard University.
 164

Umberger, Emily. 1981. Aztec Sculptures, Hieroglyphs, and History. Dissertation,

Columbia University, New York.

Van Zantwijk, Rudolph. 1985. The Aztec Arrangement: the Social History of Pre-
Spanish Mexico. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Von Winning, Hasso. 1968. Pre-Columbian Art of Mexico and Central America. New
York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc.

———. 1987. La Iconografia de Teotihuacan: Los Dioses y Los Signos. 2 vols.

México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico.

Wilkerson, S. Jeffrey. 1984. In Search of the Mountain of Foam: Human Sacrifice in

Eastern Mesoamerica. In Ritual Human Sacrifice in Mesoamerica, edited by E.
H. Boone. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
Collection.

———. 1991. And Then They Were Sacrificed. In The Mesoamerican Ballgame,
edited by V. L. Scarborough and D. R. Wilcox. Tucson: University of Arizona
Press.

Zingg, Robert Mowry. 1977. Report of the Mr. and Mrs. Henry Pfeiffer Expedition for
Huichol Ethnography: the Huichols, primitive artists. Millwood: Kraus
Reproduction Co. Original edition, 1938.